The original notice read:- "Any person aggrieved by the intended order may within 21 days of the date of this notice appeal to Brighton Magistrates Court etc."
The new notice reads:- "Any person aggrieved by the intended order may within 21 consecutive days after the date of this notice appeal to Brighton Magistrates Court etc. "
The first version was apparently interpreted as 21 working days whereas the Court works on 21 consecutive days. Somebody putting in an objection at the last minute might have been told it fell outside the allotted time period of 21 consecutive days.
 |
| The Public Notice posted today. |
 |
| Orignal paper provided by the Borough Engineer for the Highways & Transport Committee meeting on 17th August 1981 |
No doubt directed at Teresa May.
ReplyDeleteThe good old days when consultation meant the Headpostmaster's view.
the real reason for the re-consultation was the misleading letter sent to the residents.
ReplyDeleteYes I understand the time period for objections was given as 21 working days and should have been 21 consecutive days.
ReplyDeletethe misleading letter was about the history of the street name plate and the name itself stating that "Bond Street Lane" was the original name -- a lie.
ReplyDeleteHardly "a lie". "Incomplete understanding" would be more accurate. On wonders if the residents were sufficiently misled to decide that objection was futile . . . .
ReplyDeleteAnonymous commenter above, evidently opaque to reasoned explanation, seems determined to believe a dark conspiracy is afoot to deprive him of his quirky "i". Nothing could be further from the truth. It is simply that the vast majority of concerned Brightonians, including the NLCA and well-known local historians, would prefer to restrict the quirky "i" to those situations where it legitimately belongs, e.g. in the "Laine" of North Laine.
ReplyDelete