PROTESTERS who mounted a demonstration earlier this week are delighted to have won the first round in their fight to stop a waste transfer station being built near their homes.
Members of Stainton Grove Action Group, who staged a protest as councillors made a site visit on Tuesday, packed the chamber of Teesdale District Council the following afternoon to hear whether members of the planning south committee would back planning officer Ken Hughes in recommending the proposal to Durham County Council, which is the determining body.
As part of a policy adopted earlier this year, representatives of the applicant and objectors were allowed to speak. There was no representative from the applicant, Premier Waste Management, but Peter Wilkinson was elected to speak on behalf of the action group, challenging a number of statements in the planning officer's report.
He pointed out that in the local plan of 1999, the site and adjacent land were designated as being of high landscape value. He asked that the authority's decision to lease the land to the county council be rescinded and that they work in partnership to identify a more appropriate and less intrusive site.
Coun Jo Fergus could understand residents' feelings, but said her son had managed waste transfer stations and she had visited many, which were under vigorous controls nowadays. If they said no to this, they risked being ignored by the county council. A better way would be to recommend approval, with conditions.
But several members could not support that. Coun Peter Stubbs opposed it, saying residents had not been properly consulted. "It is the wrong development in the wrong place," he said.
Coun Ian Galletley praised the residents in the way they had organised themselves, and Mr Wilkinson, whose presentation was the first they had received and was the model of clarity. They had refused an application at nearby Shaw Bank because it was in open countryside but that criteria seemed to have disappeared.
"It is insupportable," he added. "I would be horrified if someone said they were going to put this 150 yards from my home.
"The council's public image is battered at the moment. It should admit it got things wrong in this case."
Coun John Watson asked for a deferral so the matter could be looked at intelligently and in depth, but the chairman, Coun Robin Simpson, warned him that if they did not make a recommendation the county council could just go ahead.
Members then backed Coun William Salvin's motion in recommending permission be refused as it contravened three policies in the local plan.
Later, Mr Wilkinson said they were extremely pleased with the result, which showed the value of motivating and organising the population.
"But this is a very small round in a very long battle," he added.
The application goes before the county council next month. "The action group will attend and will request the same five minutes' speaking time," said Mr Wilkinson. "If it is passed by the county, the group will ask for a judicial review, or for the Secretary of State to call it in."
* See reports, page 7
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article