Green belt campaigners win fight against weather mast

Campaigners are celebrating after plans for a 50-metre meteorological mast on green belt land were rejected.

http://m.sunderlandecho.com/news/environment/green-belt-campaigners-win-fight-against-weather-mast-1-5363590

Reminder

Just a reminder that the Planning Dept are looking for objections by 1st Feb. Unreasonable I know, but it is important should you feel that the revised plans do not address your original concerns that you let Steve France know. Remember nobody is going to do this for us!

Here first?

-          ‘The site at Lumley Sixth Pit Industrial Estate was originally chosen due to its good transport links close to the A1 and A19, its location away from urban areas (i.e. not in close proximity to residential properties)…………it is also important to note that the majority of stakeholders who have expressed concerns relating to the proposed development reside within this later residential development’

The above text is an extract from the revised plan. Most of the Objections are from the Estate which was not there when Par set up their operation, this is an important point it insists. However, apart from our views not being important there is also legal precedence.

I would like to bring to your attention to two landmark cases heard at the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on nuisance and negligence (and are therefore relevant to this application) - Sturges v Bridgeman (1879) and more recently Miller v Jackson (1977) - as they decided that what constitutes reasonable use of ones property depends on the character of the locality and that it is not a defence to simply claim "I was here first".

Two days to go

Potential impact

We need you to object again

It’s been approximately 9 months since Par Petroleum submitted their planning application to develop the Green Belt opposite and expand their Fuel storage and distribution site at the north entrance to the Chesters Wood Estate. This application resulted in nearly 300 people taking the time to personally object to these plans which slowed down the planning process somewhat. These objections contained many valid and strong reasons why this development should not be allowed to go ahead. A number of groups and organisations also objected to these plans including our local MP Kevan Jones, Local Councillor Audrey Willis, the Parish Council and the Local Labour Party group.

Since then Par Petroleum have been working closely with Durham County Council Planning team and they have now produced another application which apparently addresses all of the concerns of the ‘objectors’ – they have simply reduced the size of the extension. Par Petroleum, in their application also describe the need to expand as it will create an additional 7 jobs (there is no mention of how this development may affect people who run their own business from home who live on the estate) and interestingly now emphasise that as the site opened in 1991 and the estate wasn’t built until 2001 that ‘they were here first’ so our concerns are irrelevant.

However our original views still stand:

Revised plans published

Direct link to the revised plans

OK heads up, revised plans have been submitted to the planning team. If you commented on the original planning application you will receive a letter in the post in the next few days.
Don't forget to follow the blog and keep yourself up to date, we will issue our response shortly and attempt to ensure all those representing you are informed.