Cr Lorraine Kelly said the proposal had been assessed on its merits, and was particularly deficient in parking provisions.
But the council resolved to oppose the latest plans, endorsing a report from council officers which said the new plan merely tweaked the previous one and ‘‘did not address council’s fundamental concerns that relate to the intensity of development in this location and its impacts’’.
Jeez this shits me. Maybe I’ve got his wrong but one of two things seems to have happened here. Either the Council in their initial reply to first submission which in their words “tweaked the previous one” failed to provide / prescribe the parking provisions or “fundamental concerns” that would get the plan across the line ; or their requirements were onerous and unreasonable. I mean if they were reasonable why would the developers not address these issues? On point 1 I bet they didn’t provide any substantial values etc because that would be seen as a line that once met by the developers could represent tacit approval. Instead they play this game of subterfuge of who’s the biggest fish in the tank today. You know what, f**kem. You don’t have to scratch the surface too much to see what’s going on here.
