Calling all PONGS Supporters!

[seanie]

Well you've taken quite strong exception to me pointing out that the Viridor refusal was based on the visual impact, to the extent that you accused me of peddling lies. Which is odd given that what I've said is fairly obvious from the Reporters' decision.

And you've not yet produced anything substantive to suggest otherwise.

[Porty]

Which should be fairly easy to do, assuming that substantiation does exist, in the real world.
As for parking you in a position, its of your own making. You are in denial regarding the basis of the Viridor refusal and you cannot demonstrate why?

[Puerto bella]

No - I read the whole decision as the decision notice as is intended. I did not cherry pick.

[seanie]

There's no conflict between the decision whole and the conclusion. The conclusion simply summarises the various issues considered and sets out the reasons for refusal.

And the conclusion is perfectly clear. The only significant factors in rejecting the appeal related to the visual impact.

[Porty]

As you have already evidenced Sean, about 40 posts back.

No - I read the whole decision as the decision notice as is intended. I did not cherry pick.

Well i've read it too and I'd say one would find it impossible to cherry pick any significant reasons other than visual impact, which could explain why you didn't.