Rugby Club progress...

The truth the whole truth

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
Gareth said:
The piece claims it was on a technicality as planners didn't state why they didn't need an environment assessment on the original plans.

so 2 questions, is this the only reason stipulated by the high court and is it stated in the new submitted plans. If it is yes to both there is nothing dodgy going on just rubbish administration. So unless the high court are in on dodgy dealings this is likely to get passed without issue as a lawful application
Click to expand...


The truth the whole truth said:
SBC only agreed to one ,when 7 more grounds went to JR , but it only takes one doesn't it ! to get quashed

A bit like a burglar who has been convicted for eight burglaries , I will own up to one but the others will be taken into consideration
Click to expand...
 
Withnail

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
MAL said:
I have asked before but did you have a location in mind that meets the regulations.
Click to expand...
Given that the MOD have been happy to pledge many monies for this, has there not been any consideration of somewhere on the MOD Stafford site? They sure have a lot of land at their disposal, and it would seem a neat fit, would it not? One would have thought that the influx of soldiers to be housed up there would make it an ideal solution.

Has this been discounted, and if so, on what grounds?
 
John Marwood

John Marwood

I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Withnail said:
Given that the MOD have been happy to pledge many monies for this, has there not been any consideration of somewhere on the MOD Stafford site? They sure have a lot of land at their disposal, and it would seem a neat fit, would it not? One would have thought that the influx of soldiers to be housed up there would make it an ideal solution.

Has this been discounted, and if so, on what grounds?
Click to expand...

Keep up man

For pity sake

Where's the take in a stupid idea like this?

Time for your 'break ' me thinks
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
From Newsletter...

"The council and club director Martin Lennon said the case hinged on a technicality...."

Yes, breaking the law is definitely a technicality. That's why the council lost, squandering our money.
 
M

markpa12003

Well-Known Forumite
The JR procedure cannot be used to challenge the merits of a planning decision. The grounds for bringing an action are normally summarised as:
  • illegality - where the decision maker had no power to make or went beyond the power available to them in making a decision
  • procedural impropriety or unfairness - a failure in the procedure if the process followed is considered unfair or unjust
  • irrationality - where a decision is so unreasonable that no sensible person could have reached that decision
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
ATJ said:
No, that's not how statistics work. Bad conspiracy theorist, bad.
Click to expand...

Plucking figures from small samples and using them selectively is exactly how statistics work, I think. The point is that only 190 club members out of 900 could be bothered to click on a specially set up link and string a sentence together. 'Because we could walk to the ground' is a good one, considering the existing club is only a few hundred yards away.
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
markpa12003 said:
The JR procedure cannot be used to challenge the merits of a planning decision. The grounds for bringing an action are normally summarised as:
  • illegality - where the decision maker had no power to make or went beyond the power available to them in making a decision
  • procedural impropriety or unfairness - a failure in the procedure if the process followed is considered unfair or unjust
  • irrationality - where a decision is so unreasonable that no sensible person could have reached that decision
Click to expand...
That's three out of three boxes ticked, then.
 
ATJ

ATJ

Well-Known Forumite
PPPPPP said:
Plucking figures from small samples and using them selectively is exactly how statistics work, I think. The point is that only 190 club members out of 900 could be bothered to click on a specially set up link and string a sentence together. 'Because we could walk to the ground' is a good one, considering the existing club is only a few hundred yards away.
Click to expand...

No it's not, that's how spin and marketing works. 80% have not responded does not correlate to 80% opposed. Not that it's relevant anyway but I do hate to see maths and stats misused
 
G

Gareth

Well-Known Forumite
It could also be said 62905 people in Stafford did not object using that logic ; )

* guessing stafford has about 63000 folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top