While it is not a strong objection to argue that the applicants are untrustworthy, it is certainly interesting to read what the Friends claim in relation to management of the site at present, including that some work appears to have commenced, that materials have been left in situ, etc. It certainly does call into question whether the work will be managed as the applicants claim.
Personally, I think that if they really wanted to challenge the project effectively, they should concentrate their fire on the original planning decision, which may well be flawed, but I imagine they neither have the legal knowledge for that, nor the funds needed to fight the case. I think that challenging the CMP condition may well be a successful delaying tactic, but it won't prevent the development.
While it is not a strong objection to argue that the applicants are untrustworthy, it is certainly interesting to read what the Friends claim in relation to management of the site at present, including that some work appears to have commenced, that materials have been left in situ, etc. It certainly does call into question whether the work will be managed as the applicants claim.
Personally, I think that if they really wanted to challenge the project effectively, they should concentrate their fire on the original planning decision, which may well be flawed, but I imagine they neither have the legal knowledge for that, nor the funds needed to fight the case. I think that challenging the CMP condition may well be a successful delaying tactic, but it won't prevent the development.