Who voted for it

[Vincent]

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/plans-thrown-out-for-landfill-site-1-4753310

Just wondered who voted for the application?

[mk1]

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/plans-thrown-out-for-landfill-site-1-4753310

Just wondered who voted for the application?

Probably a little ray of sunshine.............

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

They should be named and shamed, and the others given some praise for listening to Joe public.

[Inspector Knacker]

Just a mischievous thought, but when they complain of the height, what view is it blocking out ....? the glorious vista of  ll those chemical plants as far as the eye can see and the nuclear power station, funny how no one ever complains about them and the delightful aroma from the sewage treatment plants...

[The Great Dictator]

When we objected against the ghost ships and lost the appeal it cost the council taxpayer £450,000.
If we go against the Environment agencies recommendations and lose an appeal Able UK will take us to the cleaners this time.

[mk1]

When we objected against the ghost ships and lost the appeal it cost the council taxpayer £450,000.
If we go against the Environment agencies recommendations and lose an appeal Able UK will take us to the cleaners this time.

'Cleaners' and 'Able UK'?
Never thought you could link those 2 words!
A bit late for councillors to start worrying over 'health issues' when for decades they have hawked the town as the perfect place to dump your toxic waste.

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

Isn't it better to lose a battle fighting for what you believe in than be friends with what you see as the enemy. 

[mk1]

Isn't it better to lose a battle fighting for what you believe in than be friends with what you see as the enemy.

I think an offer by Able  to sponsor a bus/vanity project is the next move..............

[The Great Dictator]

Stig, if we lose another appeal it might cost us more absent buses and libraries, what shall we do ?

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

testicles ...lie down and take a big pile of s**t being piled up on top of us ?

I suppose the easy option would be to move somewhere like Saltburn or Whitley Bay ( ...or North York moors like Peter Stephenson.)
What would that make me then ! 

[steveL]

A lot of people assume that local councillors are free to oppose applications on the basis of the extent of local opposition but it isn't true. It is a bit of a dilemma when the council's own planning and legal teams make it clear that, should the local planning committee oppose a particular application, they will, in all likelihood, lose an appeal. This is what happened over the Ghosts Ships and the town was stung financiallly as a result.

The problem is how little weight is given to local planning committees and how frequently their decisions are over-turned by either Central Government or the Courts, What's more, this is going to get a whole lot worse thanks to the Tory changes in the planning system which brings in a default approval of applications.  It''s left to the local planning committee to make a case to refuse applications rather than the other way round.

What do you do if you are against an application but know that all a refusal will do is land the council with a hefty legal bill?

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

The little man loses again ...you want to put a window in the loft and you have to battle through planning ...you are big business and by default you get what ever you want.

What is right and what is legal are not the same thing it seems.

[rabbit]

From the Mail: according to Able statement

"the planning committee received a very clear and unequivocal recommendation from their professional officers that the application should be approved. "

So, the planning committee used the wrong professional officers!

If the planning committee wanted a recommendation that suited them they should have sought advice form a more "friendly" source.

[steveL]

Not sure if I follow that, Rabbit. Yes the council could choose other professionals who may more routinely oppose applications and please public opinion but what is really needed is a team who can accurately predict the outcome of any applications that were taken to appeal - and we've probably already got that. Changing advisors won't change the outcome of what happens in Whitehall or the courts.

I believe the Able UK appeal cost us all around half-a-million quid. As Stig says, being right isn't always the same as being legal.

Incidentally, can you imagine something like the Ghost Ships being given the go-ahead on the South coast? I think the view of Whitehall as far as the landfills are concerned is that once you have a pile of toxic s**t does it really matter how tall it is?

Can anyone remember how many jobs the Ghost Ships were supposed to bring - was it 1500?

[rabbit]

"what is really needed is a team who can accurately predict the outcome of any applications that were taken to appeal - and we've probably already got that."

I`m not sure I follow that either, Steve. Without ploughing through a lot of stuff, who were the professionals who advised the Council that the new landfill application was acceptable? I assume that Able sort the advice (and paid for) assistance from the Environment Agency and other Government bodies, but who advised the Council?

On the Ghost Ships fiasco, to tell the truth, I could not see the reason for the Council`s refusal of the Old Ships stripdown.

They were just old ships-what is unusual about that? The contents, asbestos, oil were well known about and capable of control under the then current legalised regulations. I assume the only factor they could have used was annoyance to local residents/businesses, or the resultant long-term effects. The siting of the stripdown could not realistically have been argued against. If it had taken place in say the "Marina area", the council should have had more of a case against the application.

I agree that the strip down would not have been so acceptable on the South Coast (unless you include Portsmouth area)