RichS Posted April 29, 2017 Author Share Posted April 29, 2017 On 27/04/2017 at 20:29, Ferdinand said: Great news @RichS It would be useful to know the key points that convinced them, if you could post a summary. Ferdinand Hmmm, tricky one to answer. If i am to be charitable to my conservation/planning department it could be the fact that I pointed out the site has been extensively disturbed back in the 80s when some ground condition tests were carried out. If I was to be skeptical, it would be that I pointed out the condition was capitalised, so was specific, not general, and I wasn't in the said area's so therefore was invalid. Take your pick, but personally I think it probably falls 60/40 into the first category. Whichever, I am more than happy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now