I must admit that it is beginning to grate upon me somewhat that you keep bringing this up to legitimise this application. Natural England have no objection to this proposal on what are
very narrow parameters. They have quite clearly stated that their lack of objection is grounded in these very narrow parameters, and have quite clearly maintained throughout that they are not the best people to ask about the wider implications of this development. They have even directed the Planning Officer toward the people who
are the best people to ask. It is quite clear that the said PO has then roundly ignored this direction.
TBF, i am more disappointed with
them than i am with
you - after all, why the f**k should
you care?
I am a big fan of analogies, so please indulge me... you are a man, you have a car, a wife, a PA, and a needy friend.
The friend calls and asks to borrow your car. You are out, so your PA takes the call then passes it on. You get the message, you have no problem with the request, but ask that your PA consults your wife to ask if she has a problem with it, and if she does, to say no. Your PA calls your wife, she refuses permission to borrow the car in no uncertain terms, convinced that the friend will not take due care of it. Your PA calls the friend to say that they can borrow the car.
The friend borrows the car, and returns it with a huge dent.
Some months pass...
The friend calls and asks to borrow your car. You are out, so your PA takes the call then passes it on. You get the message, you still have no problem with the request.
You now know that your wife will not give her permission to borrow the car. You know that your PA has directly ignored your directions in this matter once before. Do you ask that your PA consults your wife to ask if she has a problem with it?
This is a false dichotomy.
Your false dichotomy is bad, and you should feel bad.
