I contacted both Friends of the Earth nationally and locally, the National organisation had never heard of Dagnam Park and the local organisation said they were opposed to the proposed location of the solar farm at Dagnam Park but were in favour of the one over in Hornchurch.
Same story with the RSPCA the Essex branch were opposed to the Dagnam park proposal and the National organisation would not comment.
We haven't inherited the earth from our parents, we have borrowed it from our children.
"Not employed by the council either in any capacity, just someone who is interested in the subject and has a modest amount of knowledge on it".
Then how do you know what info was given by officers to senior managers and cabinet members?
After all according to your own statement you never worked at the council!
Now now Dee me ol' mate that was an attempt at self preservation (in vain as it turns out) at the time. No misinformation or fake news to management or members came from that source. Nor may I add apart from that harmless identity slight of hand was any incorrect info given to this very discussion site.
You're not likely to Michael.
The chief exec Blake-Herbert slashed the salaries of many staff but not his own or any of the laughingly called senior leadership team ie the ones with their big snouts in the trough.
From what I understand many in the town hall are waiting for him to slip up.
One move in the wrong direction and a new chief exec won't be too far away.
The Court of Appeal gave judgment on Thursday 16 November 2017 at 2 p.m. Although the Court of Appeal refused the Friends’ appeal, the judgment is extremely important in that it acknowledges that public parks are held by local authorities on trust for the purpose of public enjoyment and the public are its beneficial owners; as such the public have a statutory right to use the land for recreational purposes and the local authority owner must allow the public free and unrestricted use of it.
Although the Court found that s.145 of the Local Government Act 1972 is not limited by any other statutory provision and gives the local authority the power to exclude the public from public parks notwithstanding the public’s rights, that power must be exercised lawfully and not perversely or to frustrate the purpose of the trust (i.e. the public’s right to use the land for recreational purposes). Crucially, the Court of Appeal raises therefore the prospect that where a local authority uses s.145 to exclude the public from a park, that decision can be challenged by residents asserting that the closure of a park is unlawful because it interferes too much with the public’s right to use the park for recreation.
Also, as the court has found that the Council holds Finsbury Park on trust for the public, this means that any monies raised by the Council from the hire of Finsbury Park must be used only for the purpose of Finsbury Park. The Friends will also be asking Haringey Council to account for all the monies they have raised by the hire of Finsbury Park as they are only allowed to spend the monies on Finsbury itself. The friends are concerned that in fact the Council has been using the monies for its general parks budget.
The Friends of Finsbury Park maintain however that a local authority’s power to exclude the public from a park is limited by the restrictions on space and time as set out in the Public Health Amendment Act 1890, section 44 (closure of a park for no more than 12 days in a year or 6 consecutive days on any one occasion) and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967, Article 7 (max of 1/10 of park to be closed).
The Friends have therefore applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and will continue to raise funds to be able to do this including for their potential exposure to the other sides’ costs, the court fees and copying charges; the Friends’ legal team continues to act on a conditional fee (no win no fee) basis.