In your experience, some one coming from a "no" for a review, and then being granted permission for another hearing must mean that there's high a level of circumstantial evidence.
With the profile of the site, and so much being at stake (apparently they want some athletics going on there) it's a pretty bold move to jeopardise all of that, just for the sake of having another argument?
The judge said Newham seem confused, but this angle may have taken them by surprise.
yeah, I got that bit.
In your experience, some one coming from a "no" for a review, and then being granted permission for another hearing must mean that there's high a level of circumstantial evidence.
With the profile of the site, and so much being at stake (apparently they want some athletics going on there) it's a pretty bold move to jeopardise all of that, just for the sake of having another argument?
The judge said Newham seem confused, but this angle may have taken them by surprise.