So you know where I live - I think that's in my profile too. But doesn't stop you publishing my address and the proximity of growsydenham's.JRW wrote: ↑27 Nov 2020 09:22 As you live in Perry Hill, and growsydenham lives around Mayow, it is of daily importance to neither of you. It's a shame that you don't see that your lengthy posts, and their personal attacks, puts off people from getting involved in a group, that could improve their environment
I think you intend it to exemplify why we should not be allowed to engage in this matter. Are you attempting to redefine or introduce new rules that specify proximity and locality whereby only residents of a particular street can participate and specifically only those residents who live been house numbers XXX and YYY? Once more you use the word "shame".
But then SydSoc and you have never been shy about coming down to Perry Hill to act outside your area of benefit and impose Local Listings and engage in Livesey Hall matters - in your inimitable constantly criticising style. How are your personalised and public campaigns being conducted against the CEO's of SGN and Kier going?
Me - frequent STF? A lot. Dominate STF? No. Many posters on here are as prolific and more and most have better observations to write about than I do.
Perhaps you have other motives for migrating to SE26. Don't see ANY response there from other posters on matters you raise since August 2020. You do know and you must expect others to respond to your many posts on a range of matters in which you engage. I see no absence of a thick skin adequate enough to deal with some robust views expressed by others and by that, I do mean not just by me. It may be the case that, simply put, you do not like it.
Once more it is noteworthy you add no material facts in your post here.
I am not your judge but the Inspector will be required to adjudicate on the evidence that is placed before the Inquiry itself and in the pre-Inquiry phases. Naturally only evidence submitted that is related to the conduct of the LPA's decisions and processes in planning matters will be deemed acceptable. It is probably the case that rules will require the Inspector to reject the submission of any matters that are not directly related. Even secondary issues may not be permissible and it may be the case that any tertiary issues or even more unrelated matters will be rejected - irrespective of which party makes the submission.
The absence of more details, material and germane to the Inquiry, being posted here (or on ANY local forum) leave a sense that your post of 26 November 2020 has the air of an appeal to drag up matters and make emotional accusations that in fact are ultimately inadmissible to the Inquiry.
You post that you have been granted status as a Rule 6 participant at the Inquiry and with that come responsibilities and obligations. One obligation is to comply with the timetable for submission of evidence, which will lead to pre-Inquiry scrutiny of that evidence along with that submitted by the main parties. It is inferred the submission date is imminent.
You continue to appeal to prospective supporters to join in the campaign - and provide no pointers even as to what principal points you want to see addressed by the Inquiry or why. Some may wonder why there has been no publication - is there a paucity of permissible evidence that will pass through the pre-Inquiry processes unchallenged?
All PINS processes are ultimately open - whatever submissions are made will be published in the public domain, even the stuff that is rejected. The Archdiocese material is out there - you yourself have commented on its contents.
So be open - brave even - publish and be damned. When you make the submission it will be scrutinised and reviewed in pre-Inquiry conference chaired by the Inspector with the principal parties and Rule 6 participants present.
JGD wrote: ↑26 Nov 2020 22:37 There is one thing that you can be assured about and it is this. My opinion has not moved one iota in that a compromise must be reached. Only two parties can make that compromise - the Archdiocese and the Council. It is my genuine hope that both parties will have already moved on that issue and discussions are taking place and that despite us knowing nothing of those possible actions, that they both understand we wish them every success in reaching an acceptable outcome before the Inquiry starts.