carloafc

Of all the stories and people I have dealt with over the years this is possibly the most tragic. I am absolutely stunned today.

From all my experiences of him, I can honestly say Ernie Cooksey was the kind of man everyone should aspire to be. Kind, gentle, selfless, committed - and blessed with the heart of a lion.

Good men must die, but death can not kill their names or deeds.

Sincere and heartfelt condolences to his friends and family.

Forever in our thoughts. Our Ernie.

Carl M

Knockout blow!

And, I should perhaps have added, I have the paperwork supplied to the commitee for October's meeting (when a decision was deferred) in front of me now. It definitely contains the full local authority traffic report with the same figures and text etc that was supplied for last Wednesday. The ONLY difference between October and November's paperwork was that the former did not have the Highways Agency's report about the impact on the trunk roads.

Hope this makes things clearer.

Carl M

So how come the information was only recieved at 4pm on the day that the approval decison had to be delivered is this normal? I mean shouldn't they have had this information earlier?

Guys,

Don't want to say too much or get involved in a debate on here as, because of my position, I don't think it would a professional thing to do.

However, in the interests of clarifying this for everyone, read my article again more closely. You will see towards the bottom three pars that I clearly state that the traffic report carried out by the council officers - about the impact on the surrounding roads - was attached to the reports on the application which all planning commitee members received back in October.

A clerical error just meant it wasn't attached to the main agenda paperwork for last Wednesday, so it was simply re-attached onto the late list at 4pm. It was not, however, 'new'. They'd had it since October.

Carl Marsden