Parkland Walk Development - Please Read

Don't get me wrong, John, I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate, I just want comments in objection to be well-argued and strong. I have myself written long sets of comments on applications that, on re-reading them years later with the benefit of hindsight as well as more knowledge and experience, I found to contain very little that had actual force or relevance. The Friends of Parkland Walk have a lot of good points, but they also get stuff wrong where it matters, e.g. their claim that the covenants in the Deeds, which the Council has ruled out, are still relevant to the discharge of the CMP condition:

It should be noted, that whilst the Friends of the Parkland Walk understand that the
Local Planning Authority has stated it will not consider items that reference the covenants in the deeds of the property, the Friends will continue to record objections on these grounds. This is due to our belief that the covenants constitute ‘material considerations’ as defined by section 70(2) of the TCPA 1990, and also because the Parks Department has
regularly enforced the requirements of the restrictive covenants preventing vehicular access over that period.

The Decision Notice (14.04.15) for the planning application HGY/2015/0078 for this proposed development specifically acknowledges that there may be grounds for objection
other than on planning grounds.

Note 2
This notice relates solely to a planning decision and does not purport to convey any approval or consent which may be required under Building Regulations or any
other statutory purpose.

They underline 'or any other statutory purpose', but covenants in property deeds are neither relevant under Building Regulations nor 'statutory' (IANAL).

It's best to concentrate on those points that make sense. To me, the impression certainly arises from those that the CMP has to come back for another round.