Update - further amendment

Further to the amended application the Planning Officer has received a response following a request for further clarification around operating times.

It has been clarified that the original detail define the hours of opening of the facility as 08:00 – 18:00 Monday – Friday, and 09:00 – 12:00..... This in fact relates to the Office hours, not the hours of vehicular operation. The applicant currently operates the site 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and seeks to continue this operation on the proposed extended site.

The Planning Office wish to hear any additional comments you may have about this by the 21^st March 2013. Please take the opportunity to draw your own conclusions and make a comment.

Please note that if you respond through the web portal that you should put your name and address details on there to ensure you receive a reply in the post, invites to the hearing etc.

Also the Planning Dept would like you to know that they are available to talk to anyone about this should you wish to seek clarification about the application or the planning process.

In our opinion we have a problem here as soon as we have pressed the issue about operating out of hours there has been a revision made which appears to accommodate the applicantion. I do not know what is worse, the fact that this can happen in the first place or the fact that the Company now wish to operate 24/7 – 7 days per week? We all know that they currently do not do that, yeah they sometimes stay open for stragglers but just extended hours - normally if they are open it is no later than 7pm. 

Remember the main issues:

Incursion into the greenbelt – for negligible economic impact and development.
Risk – which PAR now wish to increase even more by operating 24/7, increased chance of explosions, increased impact on the highway, etc
Drainage – the Lumley New Road struggles to cope now never mind after expanding the site. Will the Council pay for upgrading the drainage?
Screening – everything that has been proposed will NOT screen the site. Unless they are going to stick the leaves back on in winter!
Light pollution – it will be like living next door to a non league football ground, except their lights will switch off after 9:30.#

You may have your own slant on this or specific point of view, if so then do not keep it to yourself time is running out.

Diary + Pencil

Hi All
The Objections are in but if you haven't expressed your opinion please continue to do so, everyting received must be considered up to any Committee Hearing.
With that in mind please pencil in 28th Feb and 28th March 2013 as a possible hearing dates. However, the 28th March seems to be the more likely at this time.
Thank  You

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