Us veterans of the interminable TRO process from the CCWEL project can spot the misleading comments that @ACECorstorphine make in their new wee video.
This first bit is true.
This first bit is true.
This bit is also true.
As is this.
But here’s where they start misleading. This isn’t a breach of the TRO/ETRO procedure. It’s exactly how it’s supposed to work. The officers are supposed to respond to the objections based on factual information.
As I detailed below, a huge amount of the objections are based on false information and incorrect claims. The officers are doing their job by dismissing these parts of the claims.
https://twitter.com/pidginposting/status/1836030387774013723
And this doesn’t actually mean anything. A TRO/ETRO consultation is only review objections. Statements of support aren’t part of the process. And if objections aren’t based in fact then it doesn’t matter how many objections you get, those parts can be dismissed.
(Incidentally, wasn’t their Facebook group of 2500 motivated enough to make more objections?)
The other thing is that there is no requirement to go along with the objections. If officers believe that they addressed the objections or show them to be invalid then they are entirely correct to issue a report based on that. It’s then up to councillors to make the decision.
Happy to be corrected on any points, but we went through it all before at Roseburn with the same result.
@m0rningsider
@m0rningsider
@m0rningsider If anyone is interested, the Roseburn objections went all the way to the Scottish Govt reporter. He found in favour of the council. edinburgh.gov.uk/ccwel/download…
@m0rningsider Mea culpa; got a bit mixed up with the “normal” ETRO process and the process for the reporter that CCWEL went through. Both supporting and opposing statements are considered. And the same points above apply equally to supporting statements.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
