Interesting that one reason the Inspector gave for inclusion of the site was that “no new evidence had been submitted to support the request for its removal” had been offered to change his mind.

This implies that if he HAD received further evidence, he would have taken it into account in making his decision.

Didn’t the Development Management Committed imply that they would contact the Inspector about removing the site after much evidence had been submitted to it as to why it was unsuitable?

Did they contact him with this new evidence as they had appeared to suggest they would do?

And what actions (as opposed to words and supported by clear evidence) did Councillor Hughes and ex-Councillor Troman take at that point? A point so close to local elections that words and actions were particularly important?