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.
I agree whole heartedly, IA now proven to be nothing more than an anti Cas retoric troll with some inside information on the planning process.
I will now cease to read any more of your posts IA, as you are basically spouting opinion and trying to dress it up as fact.
danny boy1 wrote:
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.
I agree whole heartedly, IA now proven to be nothing more than an anti Cas retoric troll with some inside information on the planning process.
I will now cease to read any more of your posts IA, as you are basically spouting opinion and trying to dress it up as fact.
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>
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.
I really don't want to do this to you mate, genuinely, but you need to read the whole document before you make such a big statement. This document does actual confirm exactly what I was thinking! Sorry!
Your Petition may be rejected if the Service Director, Legal and Democratic Services (who is the Monitoring Officer) considers it:
relates to a matter where there is already an existing right of appeal, such as council tax banding and non-domestic rates, the Council’s regulatory functions such as Planning or Licensing functions together with Education Admission or Exclusion Appeals as there are separate statutory processes in place for dealing with these matters.
They can't discuss this at full council, even with 15,000 + signatory's because of the legal process of planning. If they did they would, as I stated, would make things worse for planning on WR not better!
danny boy1 wrote:
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.
I really don't want to do this to you mate, genuinely, but you need to read the whole document before you make such a big statement. This document does actual confirm exactly what I was thinking! Sorry!
Your Petition may be rejected if the Service Director, Legal and Democratic Services (who is the Monitoring Officer) considers it:
relates to a matter where there is already an existing right of appeal, such as council tax banding and non-domestic rates, the Council’s regulatory functions such as Planning or Licensing functions together with Education Admission or Exclusion Appeals as there are separate statutory processes in place for dealing with these matters.
They can't discuss this at full council, even with 15,000 + signatory's because of the legal process of planning. If they did they would, as I stated, would make things worse for planning on WR not better!
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>
IA's only motivation is ensure we're awake to the actual situation.
It may seem like he's being constantly negative and trying to pick fault in every aspect of Cas's plans but that's just us being cynical.
I would like to think and will take this as a genuine comment. Thanks Kippaxer, that is what I am trying to do.
It looks to me like someone, as several other posters have also done above, is not fully read and understand the guidelines. I suspect it is nothing more than a genuine error but clearly, it is an error!!!
YOU can still present this petition to and as part of the planning process of course, which is totally valid in the planning process.
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>
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.
Look, I do know I write long posts, I write as I speak... and anyone who knows me will tell you that if I can use 10 words instead of one, I most certainly will!
That is the answer, you don't have to believe me of course... but that is the answer!
pyeman wrote:
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.
Look, I do know I write long posts, I write as I speak... and anyone who knows me will tell you that if I can use 10 words instead of one, I most certainly will!
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>
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.
Having read the full guidelines, although the council should strictly reject the petition, I don't think they will do that as it make them look unreasonable.... and it would be I think as well.
I think they will actual just write back to the lead petitioner saying that the matter can't be debated by the full council for legal and regulatory reason as it relates to planning which has it's own national legal process. As such the council will pass the petition on to the Head of Planning, either supporting the application, if it is already gone when the petition is submitted or in 'anticipation' of a future application. It will be then part of the planning process and be debated by the planning committee when the application comes before them at some point in the future.
danny boy1 wrote:
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.
Having read the full guidelines, although the council should strictly reject the petition, I don't think they will do that as it make them look unreasonable.... and it would be I think as well.
I think they will actual just write back to the lead petitioner saying that the matter can't be debated by the full council for legal and regulatory reason as it relates to planning which has it's own national legal process. As such the council will pass the petition on to the Head of Planning, either supporting the application, if it is already gone when the petition is submitted or in 'anticipation' of a future application. It will be then part of the planning process and be debated by the planning committee when the application comes before them at some point in the future.
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>
I really don't want to do this to you mate, genuinely, but you need to read the whole document before you make such a big statement. This document does actual confirm exactly what I was thinking! Sorry!
They can't discuss this at full council, even with 15,000 + signatory's because of the legal process of planning. If they did they would, as I stated, would make things worse for planning on WR not better!
Your Petition may be rejected if the Service Director, Legal and Democratic Services (who is the Monitoring Officer) considers it:
relates to a matter where there is already an existing right of appeal, such as council tax banding and non-domestic rates, the Council’s regulatory functions such as Planning or Licensing functions together with Education Admission or Exclusion Appeals as there are separate statutory processes in place for dealing with these matters.
They are not appealing anything, Planning isnt in yet! they are disscusing the matter, thats the difference. The meeting will be about the impact of the proposed development for the local economy and what will happen when it is built. They wont be talking about how many parking spaces they are putting there!
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>
Your Petition may be rejected if the Service Director, Legal and Democratic Services (who is the Monitoring Officer) considers it:
relates to a matter where there is already an existing right of appeal, such as council tax banding and non-domestic rates, the Council’s regulatory functions such as Planning or Licensing functions together with Education Admission or Exclusion Appeals as there are separate statutory processes in place for dealing with these matters.
They are not appealing anything, Planning isnt in yet! they are disscusing the matter, thats the difference. The meeting will be about the impact of the proposed development for the local economy and what will happen when it is built. They wont be talking about how many parking spaces they are putting there!
I think you are misreading this... there is a comma after the word rates!
So what it means is the following -
relates to a matter where the Council’s [has] regulatory functions such as Planning or Licensing functions together with Education Admission or Exclusion Appeals as there are separate statutory processes in place for dealing with these matters.
The issue is compromising the planning process... this is a bad thing for getting planning on WR not a good thing!!! The members of the planning committee would be legally compromised by discussing this, they would simply have to leave the meeting and I doubt that the legal service team at the council would advise the full council to exclude the planning committee members for this and other democratic and legal reasons.
My only point here is that the full council are unlikely to be able to debate this issue and if they did or were forced to do so, it would make things much worse and not better! Asda and Morrisons, who will both object, will have their lawyers on this like a shot and would have a possible good case to force an independent inquiry.
If someone can point me in the direction of information that absolutely contradicts my interpretation then great, but I do think my reasoning is sound.
Last edited by Inflatable_Armadillo on Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...
