Change is inevitable ...except from a vending machine!
BillyRhino wrote:
So in best IA mode ..<.Possibley World Class, could be the greatest thing since sliced bread....am personally very excited, and confidently expect him to prove my predictions are bang on target.... Alternatively he could be rubbish>
Change is inevitable ...except from a vending machine!
BillyRhino wrote:
So in best IA mode ..<.Possibley World Class, could be the greatest thing since sliced bread....am personally very excited, and confidently expect him to prove my predictions are bang on target.... Alternatively he could be rubbish>
No problem at all. Just wondered if it was going to turn in to some sort of bitchfest or not. You asked a question at the beginning and things can go at tangents.
I hope not and I try hard not to let things get too personal, although occasionally, I have lost by rag with one or two posters in the past... many of them aren't allowed to post any more though... which justifies it I suppose!
Change is inevitable ...except from a vending machine!
BillyRhino wrote:
So in best IA mode ..<.Possibley World Class, could be the greatest thing since sliced bread....am personally very excited, and confidently expect him to prove my predictions are bang on target.... Alternatively he could be rubbish>
Sorry to break up the love in and bring things back on topic but something has struck me this morning.
I don't know whom has given 'their' agreement to the petition being debated in front of the whole of WMDC but I think this is not both democratically or legally possible, well without seriously legally compromising the planning process and, in actual fact, in a potentially bad way for the successes of any potential application for the WR site.
The planning committee members would have to surely be withdrawn or remove themselves from any meeting discussing this petition for any likley future application or lodged application for the site that has yet to be formally put before the planning committee for their 'impartial and objective' consideration. Many of the supporters of the Newmarket Development wrote to their councillors and while the ones not serving on the planning committee often gave their opinions (as they are free to do), every single one of the councillors that were serving on the planning committee either did not reply or replied along the lines of politely saying 'I am sorry, I can't discuss this with you as it would compromise my position on the planning committee'.
I think if anything in relation to a planning application for this site was allowed to be debated openly at any meetings where planning committee members were present, would have to see them withdraw from the future planning committee meeting. If this was debated in front of the whole of WMDC and then was passed subsequently by a planning committee made up of people present at that meeting (or any meeting) then a potentially successful legal challenge would surely be made by Asda/Morrison and an judicial independent inquiry ordered by the courts. This could see a decision both overturned or of course delay things in a major way!!!
I think either an officer or member of WMDC has made a rash promise that can not be ultimately be fulfilled or someone is either making this up or misunderstood something that has been said. Equally, like parliamentary privileges, it may be possible in law for members to debate this in an full council meeting and still be allowed and seen to be objective when taking their seats as members of the planning committee... but I think that is unlikely?
Sorry to break up the love in and bring things back on topic but something has struck me this morning.
I don't know whom has given 'their' agreement to the petition being debated in front of the whole of WMDC but I think this is not both democratically or legally possible, well without seriously legally compromising the planning process and, in actual fact, in a potentially bad way for the successes of any potential application for the WR site.
The planning committee members would have to surely be withdrawn or remove themselves from any meeting discussing this petition for any likley future application or lodged application for the site that has yet to be formally put before the planning committee for their 'impartial and objective' consideration. Many of the supporters of the Newmarket Development wrote to their councillors and while the ones not serving on the planning committee often gave their opinions (as they are free to do), every single one of the councillors that were serving on the planning committee either did not reply or replied along the lines of politely saying 'I am sorry, I can't discuss this with you as it would compromise my position on the planning committee'.
I think if anything in relation to a planning application for this site was allowed to be debated openly at any meetings where planning committee members were present, would have to see them withdraw from the future planning committee meeting. If this was debated in front of the whole of WMDC and then was passed subsequently by a planning committee made up of people present at that meeting (or any meeting) then a potentially successful legal challenge would surely be made by Asda/Morrison and an judicial independent inquiry ordered by the courts. This could see a decision both overturned or of course delay things in a major way!!!
I think either an officer or member of WMDC has made a rash promise that can not be ultimately be fulfilled or someone is either making this up or misunderstood something that has been said. Equally, like parliamentary privileges, it may be possible in law for members to debate this in an full council meeting and still be allowed and seen to be objective when taking their seats as members of the planning committee... but I think that is unlikely?
I used to think you were quite unbiased in the whole stadium saga but week after week every bit of news about newmarket you put a positive spin on even when its negative like the decision to go to PI and everyweek you seem to think of another potential pitfall or negative thing to say about the cas stadium plans.
I dont know what your angle is but its becoming clearer and clearer you have your own agenda (my persoanl guess is that newmarket getting built will make you some money and that will be less likely to happen when gh gets built, but it doesnt matter what your reasons are you clearly have an agenda) here and your losing more and more credibility.
Sorry to break up the love in and bring things back on topic but something has struck me this morning.
I don't know whom has given 'their' agreement to the petition being debated in front of the whole of WMDC but I think this is not both democratically or legally possible, well without seriously legally compromising the planning process and, in actual fact, in a potentially bad way for the successes of any potential application for the WR site.
The planning committee members would have to surely be withdrawn or remove themselves from any meeting discussing this petition for any likley future application or lodged application for the site that has yet to be formally put before the planning committee for their 'impartial and objective' consideration. Many of the supporters of the Newmarket Development wrote to their councillors and while the ones not serving on the planning committee often gave their opinions (as they are free to do), every single one of the councillors that were serving on the planning committee either did not reply or replied along the lines of politely saying 'I am sorry, I can't discuss this with you as it would compromise my position on the planning committee'.
I think if anything in relation to a planning application for this site was allowed to be debated openly at any meetings where planning committee members were present, would have to see them withdraw from the future planning committee meeting. If this was debated in front of the whole of WMDC and then was passed subsequently by a planning committee made up of people present at that meeting (or any meeting) then a potentially successful legal challenge would surely be made by Asda/Morrison and an judicial independent inquiry ordered by the courts. This could see a decision both overturned or of course delay things in a major way!!!
I think either an officer or member of WMDC has made a rash promise that can not be ultimately be fulfilled or someone is either making this up or misunderstood something that has been said. Equally, like parliamentary privileges, it may be possible in law for members to debate this in an full council meeting and still be allowed and seen to be objective when taking their seats as members of the planning committee... but I think that is unlikely?
You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark!
It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way?
Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying!
7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.
Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:
Sorry to break up the love in and bring things back on topic but something has struck me this morning.
I don't know whom has given 'their' agreement to the petition being debated in front of the whole of WMDC but I think this is not both democratically or legally possible, well without seriously legally compromising the planning process and, in actual fact, in a potentially bad way for the successes of any potential application for the WR site.
The planning committee members would have to surely be withdrawn or remove themselves from any meeting discussing this petition for any likley future application or lodged application for the site that has yet to be formally put before the planning committee for their 'impartial and objective' consideration. Many of the supporters of the Newmarket Development wrote to their councillors and while the ones not serving on the planning committee often gave their opinions (as they are free to do), every single one of the councillors that were serving on the planning committee either did not reply or replied along the lines of politely saying 'I am sorry, I can't discuss this with you as it would compromise my position on the planning committee'.
I think if anything in relation to a planning application for this site was allowed to be debated openly at any meetings where planning committee members were present, would have to see them withdraw from the future planning committee meeting. If this was debated in front of the whole of WMDC and then was passed subsequently by a planning committee made up of people present at that meeting (or any meeting) then a potentially successful legal challenge would surely be made by Asda/Morrison and an judicial independent inquiry ordered by the courts. This could see a decision both overturned or of course delay things in a major way!!!
I think either an officer or member of WMDC has made a rash promise that can not be ultimately be fulfilled or someone is either making this up or misunderstood something that has been said. Equally, like parliamentary privileges, it may be possible in law for members to debate this in an full council meeting and still be allowed and seen to be objective when taking their seats as members of the planning committee... but I think that is unlikely?
You have well and truly come out as anti-Cas now IA, your previous postings where you indicated that the opposite was true were way off the mark!
It's quite obvious you have some ulterior motive, maybe it is connected with the NM project, maybe something else, who knows? The proposed development at GH has no bearing whatsoever on NM or for that matter WTW, so maybe it because you are in bed with WTW and you consider this to threaten them in some other way?
Please find link below taken from the WMDC own web site petition guidelines - stating the opposite to what you are saying!
7. Debates at Meetings of Council If a petition contains more than 15,000 signatures (which is approximately 5% of the electoral roll in Wakefield MDC) it will be debated by a Meeting of Full Council - unless it is a petition asking for a Senior Council Officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend.
Absolutely... the answer is 42... but what was the question again? 
