CAMPAIGNERS opposing an extension to an industrial estate proposed for farmland have vowed to take their fight to a public inquiry.

Members of Durham County Council's planning committee yesterday approved a £1.3m five-hectare development at Esh Winning, near Durham City.

Residents and members of the Council for the Protection of Rural England say the proposal contravenes the area's development plan and sets a worrying precedent for greenfield sites.

They are calling for a public inquiry into the decision, which was backed by Derwentside District Council, Durham City Council, the Esh Partnership and Youngs Haulage.

A report by the council's head of planning, John Suckling, said the disadvantages of the development plan were outweighed by the economic benefits.

The council says that at least 72 jobs will be created, with a possible 400 to come over the next ten years.

Jack Lumsden, president of Lumsden and Carroll construction, told the meeting he would have pulled out of Esh Winning, with the loss of 450 jobs, if permission was denied.

Sarah Banks, of the Esh Winning Residents' Association, said she hoped a public inquiry, should the secretary of state order one, would be more objective.

She said: "We needed a lot more hard facts and figures from the council to back up the council's claims about how many jobs will be created.

"This development is quite simply an expensive white elephant. No one has convinced us the employment opportunities would actually exist.

"Also, Lumsden and Carroll threatening to move is what you could call moral blackmail. What evidence is there for this move?"

Eve Colling, a retired company executive who spent £250,000 renovating Orchard House, next to the proposed access road, told the planning meeting of her disappointment at the decision.

She said: "We've spent 15 years turning it into our dream home. I intended to spend the rest of my life looking after this house - now I'll probably spend the rest of my days in a psychiatric ward."

The council received 99 objections and a petition of 326 signatures against the plans, plus 116 letters of support.