3 4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Miss - Planning Tribunal

22
1 and the documentation that has been put to you, I suggest to you that it is far
2 more likely even if there was 2,530 fresh representations relodged for the
3 second display, that the vast majority of them related to objections that were
4 lodge for the first time
5 A That's quite possible.
6
7 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS
8 BY MR. MONTGOMERY:
9
10 Q 111MR. MONTGOMERY: I have one brief question. Mr. McGlynn, you are giving
11 evidence but your evidence is based primarily on experience and surmise. When
12 did you go to the Planning Department?
13 A 1997.
14 Q 112Did you ever see any of the documentation surrounding the minutes in relation
15 to this application?
16 A No, I would not.
17 Q 113So that, in effect, everything, all of the evidence you have given is purely in
18 the light or hindsight of your own experience?
19 A Yes.
20 Q 114If there were 2,530 new representations after the first public display, would
21 these representations have been circulated to the councillors?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 115And would it surprise you to know that none of the councillors who have given
24 evidence can remember getting them? In particular, Mr. Barrett and Mrs. Nora
25 Owen.
26 A They should have got them, shall I say. In my view it would have been a
27 requirement on the manager to circulate them and I would assume they would have
28 been circulated as normal.
29 Q 116As there would have been a similar requirement on the County Manager to ensure
30 that there was a different report attaching to his second meeting than there