And again.......
Patrick,
You argue that the only prudent method to prove any breach is to provide evidence that the relevant bodies have taken action concerning said breach. Whilst I made light of it in my last post, this rationale leads to the completely illogical conclusion that if no action has been taken then no breach has occurred. The only way to settle this matter is to directly compare the permissions granted, including any amendments, with the work physically undertaken, ignoring whether or not action relating to breaches has been taken, is pending, has been brush under the carpet or is lost in space!
This is supposedly a website for vaguely intelligent people that can easily see through the bullshit. It's not a court case and your not the accused so please try to stop pursuing the not-enough-evidence-to-convict-me argument.
I await your next long winded attempt at sidestepping Occum's Razor. And I quote "The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power." So far, based upon initial consent and the physical landscape, we have evidence of the 'simpler theory,' maybe now you could produce the 'greater explanatory power' in the form of an amendment to consent.
PS: And as for the Daily Mail.......referencing that rag won't win too much support from anyone other than the flog 'em and hang 'em brigade.