I think the following paragraph from the front page article is key: "The council and developer had argued that even if there was an error, the outcome would "highly likely" have been the same regardless, given the extra homes, affordable housing and other benefits the new scheme offered. The judge rejected this, saying the fallback scheme's quality was too central to the planning balance for the court to be confident the decision wouldn't have been different with accurate information." I interpret that as the Judge saying "well you might have still approved the larger scheme in preference to the smaller scheme, but I can't be 100% confident that would have been the outcome, even if all the information you were presented with had been correct." I don't support the larger development by the way i.e. I'm not trying to promote it over the smaller one that is more in keeping with the area.

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Great news on the horrible Burlington Lane Tower	14/09/26 18:58:00	Felicity Caborn
Re:Great news on the horrible Burlington Lane Tower	15/09/26 00:42:00	Andrew Jones
Re:Great news on the horrible Burlington Lane Tower	15/09/26 07:17:00	Jackie Elton
Re:Re:Great news on the horrible Burlington Lane Tower	15/09/26 08:24:00	Jeremy Parkinson
Re:Re:Re:Great news on the horrible Burlington Lane Tower	15/09/26 09:05:00	Felicity Caborn
Re:Re:Re:Re:Great news on the horrible Burlington Lane Tower	15/09/26 11:39:00	Andrew Jones
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Great news on the horrible Burlington Lane Tower	15/09/26 12:30:00	Michael Robinson
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Great news on the horrible Burlington Lane Tower	15/09/26 12:51:00	Andrew Jones

Forum Home