Mikinton
Well-Known Forumite
Very droll.
Last edited:
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
I have asked before but did you have a location in mind that meets the regulations.
Any suggestions for raising funds ? as it looks like campaigners will be applying for a Judicial Review pt2
Extract from SBC officers report
As at 15 March 2016, 290 representations have been received from 243 addresses: 98 objections and 192 supporting comments.
A lot of people = 192 from a membership of 900 +
Not having an alternative site is not a valid reason to go ahead regardless of damage? Any response to the SWT report?
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
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
No, that's not how statistics work. Bad conspiracy theorist, bad.So 80% of club members object to the move?
Loads.How much money does this procedure cost and who pays
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.I have asked before but did you have a location in mind that meets the regulations.
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?
So, @MAL , any comment on the SWT report?
No, that's not how statistics work. Bad conspiracy theorist, bad.
That's three out of three boxes ticked, then.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
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.