St James' Park

[Turnbull2000]

Morons. Probably 1/3 mackems, 1/3 nimbys who don't live here, 1/3 local nimbys.

 

A landscaped approach in front of the listed Leazes Terraces to a new ground would be a major improvement to the city.

[duo]

They won't loose anything- park be relocated to St James

[Terrymac1966]

14 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

Morons. Probably 1/3 mackems, 1/3 nimbys who don't live here, 1/3 local nimbys.

 

A landscaped approach in front of the listed Leazes Terraces to a new ground would be a major improvement to the city.

I think 1/3 mackems is a bit undercounted. They have been encouraging each other for weeks to object on that sad flick page of theirs...

Hope a geographical search is done on each objector and okly those within a small radius considered

[Stifler]

2 minutes ago, Terrymac1966 said:

I think 1/3 mackems is a bit undercounted. They have been encouraging each other for weeks to object on that sad flick page of theirs...

Hope a geographical search is done on each objector and okly those within a small radius considered

A Change page has no baring at all on any applications. The only thing they will take into consideration would be any made to planning application on the planning portal. Even then, they have to take things into consideration, and can’t just reject it because it will make some people unhappy. There needs to be lawful reasons why they reject the application.

Additionally the council will be aware that there will be a lot of people unhappy with it, and that some of those may have anterior motives, which rally weakens the legit concerns. So a large pushback wouldn’t be unexpected.

They would also presumably have pressure from central government to back a scheme as well. 

[JonBez comesock]

50% Druggies

33% Rats

7% Mackems

5% Mike Ashley Bots

4% Richard masters / Richard Keys 

1% Rio Ferdinand’s Fan club 

[Whitley mag]

Lee Ryder bashing out another article around staying at SJP to get his weekly quota in.