News today

« Bhopal protest comes to Grangemouth | Main | Could the US and Canada go to war over water? »


I don't think Trump has any interest in co-operation to achieve biodiversity, despite all his rhetoric, although there are far more issues than simply that one to consider when opposing his plans for a massive new development.

If there has been collusion, then it requires investigation. It's in the interest of democracy and fairness in local government that a chief planner is impartial. It may be that she has merely been imprudent in her choice of words, but it's a warning shot to all in her position. This is an especially sensitive case, involving as it does individual people and their homes. If a CPO is enacted by the council, the ramifications for that are wide. It would be a change in the accepted use of CPO's by stealth. This is something which should not set a precedent without a national debate.

The Trump development is a private development, and claims regarding the wider public benefits for the area are unproven. Even if the development does go ahead, then it can happen without taking people's homes and land from them.

So no, not petty, a small part in a wider jigsaw.


Clutching at straws.

Wouldn't the effort be betetr placed trying to help Trump achieve higher levels of biodiversity by getting involved with the design team at this stage rather than trying to knock out planners that did their job under difficult circumstances?

All seems a bit petty.

The comments to this entry are closed.