More:
Quote The same Third Parties have insinuated that there are, or have been, inappropriate links between the developer and the Council. It is disappointing that any decent substantive points that could have been made by these objectors have been devalued by such baseless accusations.'"
And more:
Quote The point can be illustrated by the oral evidence of Ms. Fender. The Methley and Mickletown Residents Association alleged45 that they asked Councillor Box, the Leader of WMDC, for details of work that he undertook for a company that maintained the application site after it ceased operations as a colliery, but that he “refused” to provide any details. When asked for evidence of the alleged request and refusal, Ms. Fender was unable to produce any. Quite apart from the fact that Councillor Box did not sit on the Planning Committee and that he disclosed his private work on the Register of Members’ Interests, this exchange shows how easy it is to make such allegations, but how difficult it is to back them up.'"
Finally the LCC:
Quote The position is that either LCC considered the matter properly, or not. If it did then it must have decided that VSC applied and therefore “very significant weight” must have been given to the proposed stadium. This runs contrary to closing submissions46 which says “some weight”. The second alternative is that LCC did not consider the position properly. If that is true then the position of LCC should be given “very little weight”47.'"
