I'd like to compare and contrast the ^above statement with the following, re. 'statutory' bodies -
In both instances, 'statutory consultees' have not actually visited the sites to which they have given their 'statutory' blessing. There are differences, though...
Sport England have given their response to the Hockey Club proposal without ever visiting, despite being invited to do so. They have based their decision on the conflicting accounts that have landed on their desk.It is a desk-based assessment.
Natural England have given their response to your proposal without ever visiting, and i very much doubt they've been invited to do so. They have based their decision on the conflicting accounts that have landed on their desk. This, too, is a desk-based assessment, but the difference is that this one comes with a proviso, vis. the views of the local wildlife trust should be given "strong regard".
Now you can 'guess' the "hockey club situation" is as 'complex' as you like, but the "rugby club situation", statutorily speaking, should be a lot less so.
It should be dead in the water, and yet it is not. Which i 'guess' makes it something of a more complex kind of whatsit?