As part of the appeals process we have decided to reiterate our original objection to the application and we have reproduced our comments below for information.
We would urge all those concerned to contact the planning inspector direct to submit their objections. One of the strongest arguments at our disposal during the planning process earlier this year was the strength, and unity, of local public opinion against this application. We would like to take that show of community cohesion into the appeals hearing.
Please make sure that you submit your comments by Tuesday 19 August making sure that you use the correct reference numbers as shown.
Further information on the appeals process is available at: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk
Re: Application: CE/13/01660/FPA/PGH
Case
ref: APP/X1355/A/2221052
We wish to
reiterate our formal objection to the above planning proposal for a crematorium
at land opposite the Former Brewery at Castle Eden as submitted as part of the
planning process.
In noting the
vast number of objections submitted by residents we remain steadfastly opposed
to the proposed development (we also note that there were no submissions from
residents in support of the application).
We fully
support the decision of the strategic planning committee of Durham County
Council to refuse the application on the grounds stated in the refusal notice.
We have serious and genuine concerns about the impact of the development on the
general amenity of residents, road users and the wider community and we have
specific concerns about traffic generation, anti-social behaviour and security
issues in the area should the appeal be upheld. These last two factors relate
to the proposed reopening of the access road which was closed some years ago to
eliminate serious illegal behaviour at this location.
We feel that
the applicant/appellant failed to sufficiently demonstrate the sustainability
element of the development or to prove the case for need. We also consider that
the site selection process carried out by the applicant/appellant was flawed
and inadequate.
Finally we
are particularly worried about health and safety implications of the
development, specifically those associated with straying golf balls from the Castle Eden Golf Club immediately adjacent to the development site. Despite
serious consideration we are not able to see a resolution to this matter and we
feel strongly that this cannot be simply subjected to conditions imposed on any
consent.
Regards,
