A profanity filter is employed. Please use a valid e-mail with your message and a valid name if at all possible. Please keep to the posters subject.
RICHMOND WATCHDOG OPEN FORUM
Go to Top  |  New Topic  |  Go to Topic  |  Search 
 Subject: RE: The Implications.
 
Author: Anthony P Berend
Date:   11/4/2001 0:35 am WEDT

You do profess to be "the innocent" Cllr Mann.

It was a well know practice to "sell" planning consents - under section 105 agreements. Particularly after the 1987 Use class order was brought in. Quite common in certain London Boroughs. A practice which the Courts and the Tory government stamped on hard.

How many planning enquires resulted in Richmond Council having to pay the developers costs? One Inspector was quoted as saying The Council acted totally unreasonable [Civil serice code for "political grounds" for refusal] when finding for the developer and requiring the Council to pay their costs of appeal. A most unusual decision in itself.

How much did the multitude of court appearences cost the rate payers when the Council tried to stop the Sainsbury development on the Hampton Nursery Lands? "With out merit" a judge described the Councils case in one court. Mostly fexsatous litigation. Was it £1,000,000 of OUR money?

Then there was Manor Road. !!!


Anthony P Berend
Reply To This Message
 Previous Message  |  Next Message

 Topics Author  Date      
 Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 5:35 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 7:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 10:45 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 11:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 11:32 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:54 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:56 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Voter 11/1/2001 1:18 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 In need of more help 11/1/2001 2:58 pm WEDT
 STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 J. Watley 11/2/2001 0:10 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/2/2001 11:59 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 12:21 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Knowledgeable 11/2/2001 1:20 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 3:31 pm WEDT
 Still Waiting.   new  
 R H 2/24/2002 6:36 pm WEDT
 RE: Still Waiting.   new  
 Laurence Mann 2/25/2002 1:08 pm WEDT
 Minutes   new  
 R H 2/25/2002 2:07 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/2/2001 8:46 pm WEDT
 The Implications.   new  
 R H 11/3/2001 2:49 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/3/2001 10:05 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.    
 Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 RichardMeacock 11/4/2001 8:41 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:56 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:43 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:46 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/5/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/5/2001 7:55 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 11:27 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:38 am WEDT
 Statistics.   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 3:55 pm WEDT
 RE: Statistics.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/9/2001 9:09 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?     
 Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:05 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 9:03 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Public Service Information 11/2/2001 8:37 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Knightsbridge LET Staff member 11/3/2001 10:23 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:36 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:27 am WEDT
 Purpose?   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 3:23 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 3:14 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 4:47 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 8:07 pm WEDT
 Previous Topic  |  Next Topic
 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:  
 Your Email:  
 Subject:  
  Submission Validation Question: What is 64 + 48? *  
* indicates required field
     

Sexist, Racist, Rude or unnecessary messages will be removed. Tolerance to anonymous messages will be at the discretion of the administration body. Anyone who insults the owner of this forum will be barred for life. No adverts permitted.