QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 9 2016, 06:47 AM)
Yes,I'd agree, we ought to see the whole picture. Sadly, past experience suggests that's simply not going to happen. We'll just end up with whatever 'they' deem is fit and that's that. I feel very uncomfortable about this whole 'development plan' the executive at the Council are pursuing it feels very much like the discredited development plans of the late 1960s when high rise flats and vast shopping centres was the vogue and much concrete was laid at the expense of our historic city centres. Whatever happened to T.Dan Smith and his mates?
Well, courtesy of Cllr Fredrickson's letter in the NWN, I have been able to locate the full judgement on Bailli:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2166.htmlUnderstanding it is another matter.....
From a layman's perspective it seems like my observations about equating 'best value' with 'value for money' are correct. Decisions appear to have been made based on future rental streams for WBC which I am uncomfortable with because it a- compromises the planning process, b- will inevitably lead to a high density development and c- disadvantages existing tenants ( including the Football Club).
There is a lot of reference to papers being taken to the Executive, but I think these were mostly Part 2, so we (the Public) can't access them. Nevertheless, thanks to Duncan Crook's persistence/challenge more bits of the jigsaw are emerging & personally as a ratepayer I don't think he should be criticised for that. If the case hadn't had some merit it wouldn't have been heard.
It doesn't look as though he's been allowed to appeal though, or at least not on the grounds initially put forward. Maybe there's more to come?