What I don't understand is why these two reasons for rejecting the proposal were not used for previous gambling dens which did get approval? I suspect that this decision may get overruled. At what point are there 'too many' gambling dens? Who determines this? In my opinion anything more than one is too many but against a legal challenge how could this be argued other than based on public opinion.
I use to work in the transport side of development control and we used to reject applications for A3 (restaurants) if it was deemed that they would dramatically increase on-street parking pressure. The Inspector argued that there had been no formal research into this and approved the applications.
2 comments:
splendid news!
What I don't understand is why these two reasons for rejecting the proposal were not used for previous gambling dens which did get approval? I suspect that this decision may get overruled. At what point are there 'too many' gambling dens? Who determines this? In my opinion anything more than one is too many but against a legal challenge how could this be argued other than based on public opinion.
I use to work in the transport side of development control and we used to reject applications for A3 (restaurants) if it was deemed that they would dramatically increase on-street parking pressure. The Inspector argued that there had been no formal research into this and approved the applications.
Post a Comment