|
Neston Mine - Dedicated Page
Above you can see the type of HGV that could be used to transport stone through the village of Neston if the proposed re-opening of Park Lane Quarry is given the go-ahead.
We could be seeing up to 10 of these a day!
They wouldn't be spreading a few bits of hay around the village as this one does, they would be spreading harmful Limestone dust.
If you would like to support us in our campaign to stop our village from becoming an industrial through road please read on.
Index
LATEST NEWS
Secretary of State Backs Applicants
Applicants go to the Secretary of State for Ruling
Council Asks for Applications to be Withdrawn
Strategic Planning Meeting Put Back Again
Wiltshire Council Development Service Letter, 7th July 2010
Amendments Received for the Applications
Our MP is on our Side!
Strategic Planning Meeting Put Back
Delivery of Petition Letter to Sir James
News from the Exhibition
Original Application Details
Date set for Strategic Planning Committee Meeting
I have received an email today (20th Jan) from Greg Lester letting me know that both applications will be presented to the Strategic Planning Committee on 15 February 2012.
Parties who made representations on the applications will be advised of the date, time and location of the meeting in due course.
As you may know the applicant recently sought an opinion as to whether the proposals should be subject to environmental impact assessment (EIA). The Council was of the view that they should, but the applicant disputed this and appealed to the Secretary of State (SoS). The SoS has now directed that the proposed development is not ‘EIA development’ and therefore an EIA is not needed.
Those of you who have objected formally to the Council about the re-opening of Neston Mine will have received a letter explaining that additional information from the applicants has also now been received: the applicants have decided to push ahead with the proposal and have ignored completely the issues around traffic, noise and dust etc.
Everyone can view the new documents supplied, and make comments to the Council, by visiting the Council’s website: Wiltshire Council Application Search Page. Go to this page and 'search' on these two application numbers: 09/02158/WCM and 09/02159/WCM.
Please be aware that a recent document produced by the Team Leader of Minerals and Waste Development on behalf of Wiltshire Council stated: ‘Noise, dust, traffic and visual impacts are unlikely to be significant’ and ‘The increase in HGV traffic… represent a minor change to the existing traffic and whilst this has the potential to cause adverse impacts on the environment as a result of increased noise, pollution and vibration and impact upon highway safety, it is considered to be an infrequent event and therefore these impacts are likely to be minimal.’
Again, the Council fails to take into account the true figures of HGV traffic proposed. They are only looking at the minimal levels of movement possible and only taking into account the movement of fully laden lorries – what about the empty lorry movements?. We have estimated that HGV traffic could be as many as 10 a day, not the 10-15 a week as constantly used by the applicants and the Council.
We need to keep the pressure up on the Council.
Do not let the local landowner run roughshod
over our peaceful village
Please go online and read the new documents. You will need to make any comments to the Council by the 11th August.
I have recently chased the Park Lane mining application and have received the following details from Greg Lester (Wiltshire Council Planning):
‘The Council has requested that the applicant withdraw the applications and resubmit once the required protected species surveys have been completed. However, the applicant has some difficulty in meeting this request due to the terms of legal arrangement between them and landowner.
In the meantime, the applicant has continued to carry out bat surveys and to address other matters that were raised during the publicity and consultation stages for the applications (landscape and traffic impact). However, at this stage no new information has been submitted. In addition, the applicant has sought an opinion as to whether the proposals should be subject to environmental impact assessment. The Council is of the view that they should but the applicant has disputed this and has appealed to the Secretary of State (SoS) for a direction on the matter. A decision is expected shortly.
Dependent on the Secretary of State’s decision, there will either be a further round of publicity and consultation on the new information to be provided by the applicant or the submission of a fresh application accompanied by an environmental statement. Alternatively, the applicant may decide not to pursue the development.
I can appreciate that the protracted timescale involved with both applications is a cause of frustration locally and can assure you that as soon as the applicant has confirmed their intentions to the Council we will contact all parties who have expressed an interest in this matter and inform them of the position.’
On asking whether we, the village, have a right of appeal if the SoS makes a decision in their favour I have been told that, ‘with regard to rights of appeal, the Regulations do not make any provision for a third party right of appeal.’
At this present time the SoS is ‘currently awaiting advice from Natural England with regard to the issue of bats within the mine. It is anticipated that this process will take approximately 2 weeks.’
As it seems that we, the people, cannot make representations directly to the SoS I have asked Duncan Hames (MP) to do so on our behalf. I have stressed that we need to make sure that the SoS is made very aware of the facts in this case and the large amount of opposition to the proposals – which includes several villages and the Corsham Town Council. I have been assured that he ‘should be able to look into this with the Secretary of State at the start of next week’.
I will keep you updated with any more information as it comes to me.
I have received the following email from Greg Lester (Wiltshire Council Planning) on 7th September.
'Dear Mr Macleod,
Further to my e-mail to you of 23 July 2010 I can confirm that I have now met with Mr Salmon, the planning agent acting for Ham and Doulting Stone. During the meeting we discussed the concerns that have been raised locally to the proposals and the matters which the applications do not adequately address, such as the visual impact of the haul road and stocking area. In particular, it was established that surveys to understand the use bats make of the disused workings have not been carried out. Surveys will be required over this coming winter, with the last surveys not taking place until early May 2011. Given the extended time period for assembling the information, I have requested that the planning applications be withdrawn. Mr Salmon is now consulting with his clients and will confirm their intentions shortly. I will update you again once I have heard from Mr Salmon.'
I have today (5th October) received a letter from Duncan Hames MP, who is continuing to take an active part in this issue, stating that Mr Lester is still awaiting confirmation from Mr Salmon as to his client’s intentions on withdrawing the applications.
You will, of course, be kept updated on this through Neston News and via the village website (www.nestonvillage.org.uk).
In the meantime a sincere thank you to everyone involved in fighting these applications on behalf of us all.
I have today (23rd July) received the following email from Greg Lester, Planning Officer, Wiltshire Council:
'Further to previous correspondence, I wish to advise you that I have arranged a meeting for 24 August 2010 with the applicant’s agent, John Salmon, to discuss the various deficiencies with the applications for the site at Park Lane Mine. I had hoped to arrange a meeting prior to this, but unfortunately owing to the prior commitments of those who need to attend the meeting this has not been possible. As a result the applications are not likely to be considered at the Strategic Planning Committee on 1 September 2010. I will update you again once I have met with Mr Salmon.'
We will, of course, keep everyone informed as soon as we know of the next date.
I have today received a letter from Mr B A Fleet, Services Director, Wiltshire Council, via Duncan Hames MP. The relevant paragraph is below:
'With regards to the concerns over traffic, I can advise that the traffic movements are likely to be 1 to 2 loaded journeys a day and not 10 as has been suggested. The applicant did hold a public exhibition earlier this year in response to local concerns and to counter misinformation which was being circulated. At this event a number of suggestions were made as to alternative routes along which the stone from the mine could be transported and the applicant agreed to review these routes. However, the review confirmed that these suggested alternatives, whilst looking attractive on a map, would not be viable. The Local Highway Authority has considered the matter and advises that the proposed route is acceptable in highway terms.’
You can view the whole letter here. I have replied to this letter via Duncan Hames MP. Please see below:
Dear Duncan
Thank you for your letter of 28th June, enclosing a response from Mr Fleet of Wiltshire Council.
I feel it is really important to raise a few issues with Mr Fleet as he seems to have missed some vital points:
1. How many lorry movements a day will there really be? Mr Fleet has asserted that that there will be 1 to 2 loaded lorries a day, and not the 10 movements that we suggest. Can he Mr Fleet say how he knows this? I would suggest that his ‘1 to 2’ figure is based on an average extraction of only 12,000 tonnes a year and, further, is only the number of loaded lorries. You have to double that figure to get the actual number of movements – because empty lorries have to get to the mine to become loaded!
The mining company continues to use this 12,000 tonnes figure. Is this because it shows a low number of movements, or, is it based on current market conditions? In their application they are asking for 18,000 tonnes, so they must expect the market to pick up. In this case we must use their 18,000 figure because at some point in the future they could be mining to that capacity. This would mean that we get 6 movements a day (loaded and empty). This 6 a day is an ‘average’ figure. There will, of course be slow times and busy times. During the busy times we estimate that there could be as many as 10 lorry movements a day, which is only an extra 2 loaded lorries a day at these times.
Naturally the mining company will try to downplay the number of movements, but, the job of the Council is to take a figure based on what has been applied for and not what they have been told by the mining company ‘may’ happen. The Council must take a figure based on the maximum amount the mining company could extract – 18,000 tonnes a year – as this could happen at any point in the future, leaving the village with not 1 or 2 lorries passing through it a day, but 10.
I, and the rest of the village, would be most interested to hear how Mr Feet feels justified in advising that ‘the traffic movements are likely to be 1 or 2 a day…’ especially as the mining company themselves have suggested 4 movements a day and we feel it will be a minimum of 6 a day.
2. Mr Fleet stated that the applicants held a public exhibition to ‘counter misinformation which was being circulated.’ As far as we are aware there was no misinformation being circulated. The only information that was in dispute at that time was how many traffic movements there were likely to be. Please see point 1. This is not misinformation, it is disputed information.
Apart from there being many complaints about the timing of the exhibition – it was held between 3.30pm to 6pm when most villagers were still at work – the mining company made lots of misleading statements and misrepresentations. Some of these are as follows:
a. The applicants supplied a letter stating that there would only be 4 trips a day. This is a misrepresentation of possible figures, see point 1.
b. One of their reps stated that the Council Geologist, Ecologist and Highways Engineer told the company that they couldn't take a new haul road any way except Northwards because of the geology of the land and the Roman Road. On speaking to Dick Tonge (a local councillor) he assured me that the Highways Engineer had said no such thing (he had only spoken to him that morning on this issue!).
c. The applicants supplied a letter on the day stating that there would only be a maximum of 4 trips a day. Please see point 1 above.
d. The applicants supplied a letter on the day stating that the road will be of farm track proportions. They have applied for a 7 meter wide road - this isn’t farm track proportions.
e. One of their reps stated that the new haul road would be 'coated with hard Mendip stone'. In the application it states that there would be a ‘running surface of compacted stone supplied from the construction of the mine access area’. He even tried to suggest that the surface would be the same as the surface in the Hall car park, which is tarmac!
f. The applicants supplied a letter on the day stating ‘there will be no working at weekends or evenings.’ This is untrue. Their application includes working on Saturday’s between 7am and 1pm.
g. One of their reps stated that they would water down the new haul road when necessary to reduce dust. When pressed on the matter he said they would be made to by the council if enough people complained that they were not doing it - leading to the onus being on local residents to police the issue.
h. One of their reps stated that fine dust does not have any detrimental effects on people, even those with asthma. This is not true.
As you can see, the only misinformation being generated over this issue is coming from the mining company itself.
3. Mr Fleet is correct in stating that at the exhibition a number of alternative routes were suggested. We both know that the best, and most direct route, is West through the Fuller estate as this would bypass over 200 houses (4 villages) and only go past 1 house – Sir James Fuller’s.
I, and the rest of the village, would be most interested to hear why these other routes would not be viable, especially the Western route. I, and several others, have spoken directly to Sir James and, so far, the only reason he has given for the route not going West is because he doesn’t want it to go past his house. Are there any other reasons, and who conducted this new review?
4. Finally, the Local Highway Authority have indeed advised that the proposed route is acceptable (which of course we dispute and so does the Town Council) but this is based on the incorrect figure of 1 to 2 lorries a day. I have written to Greg Lester and Roger Witt over this matter. Please find attached my letter dated 10th June, for which I have yet to receive a reply.
If the decision by the Council is to have any legitimacy it must be based on figures supplied in the original application and not on promises or hear-say given by the mining company. Why are the Council and the Highway Authority insisting on using the lower figures? I am sure that if they use the correct figures they will have a different view on this application.
If the application was allowed to proceed on this basis, there would be nothing stopping the mining company from extracting 18,000 tonnes a year and creating up to 10 lorry movements a day through our village.
Please could you pass this letter on to Mr Fleet and ask the following, most important questions, one’s that the village has a right to know:
1. Why are the Council and the Highway Authority insisting on using the lower figures for lorry movements? Will they accept that this is a mistake and that they should be using the maximum 18,000 tonne figure in case of future increased mining?
2. What misrepresentations is Mr Fleet talking about with regards to the exhibition? Does he accept that the mining company made many misrepresentations at this exhibition?
3. Who has decided that the other routes are not viable, and why are they not viable?
Mr Fleet states it is not usual in these matters to enter into correspondence, but this is such an important matter, that affects many hundreds of people, that I think it is only right and proper that we have answers to these questions well before the September deadline, so that we have a chance to comment on them. When we have had his replies I will be able to let the village know.
In the meantime I will post yours and Mr Fleet’s letters, together with my reply, onto the village website and in the Neston News.
As soon as I get a reply from Mr Fleet I will post it to this site.
Mr Fleet also stated, 'The earliest meeting of Strategic Planning Committee that could consider the application in on 1 September 2010. The planning officers report will be made available a week before the meeting…'
As soon as we have any more news on thsi I will post it.
Duncan Hames MP has assured me that this is not the end of his involvement and he will be writing to explain further action that he is taking.
The requested information from the Council to Sir James has now been received and published on the Council’s website. You can view them here: Wiltshire Council Application Search Page. Go to this page and 'search' on these two application numbers: 09/02158/WCM and 09/02159/WCM.
This information includes how they believe the mine and the proposed new haul road will impact on local residents visually, as well as an assessment of the impact on the bat population that exists in the mine.
The Council are now undertaking a further 21 day consultation period during which we can make representations on the new information. We only have until the 11th June to reply to this new information.
Pending the outcome of the consultation responses the applications can then be taken forward to committee. The earliest available meeting date is now 1st September 2010.
I thought you'd all like to know that we have received support from Duncan Hames, our new MP. Please see his email sent to me before he was elected:
Dear Mr Macleod,
Thank you for taking the trouble to write to me about this issue which will affect several hundred of my prospective constituents. I was grateful for the time that you spent with me at your home yesterday so that I could see the petition signatures you had collected, maps and photos of the land and routes in question, and the consultation responses made by local councils.
It is my considered opinion that the most direct, and least disruptive route for traffic serving a re-opened mine on this site would be to the West, thereby avoiding narrow country lanes in the village, and either built-up areas of Corsham to the North, or a lengthy de-tour through the parishes Whitley and Atworth which already suffer a great deal of through-traffic. A southern route which still avoided Atworth, may also be appropriate if its construction was considered viable, and is worth consideration.
If I am elected as our next MP on Thursday, I would be very pleased to help in whatever way I could to support you, your neighbours, Corsham Town Council, and Atworth Parish Council make your objections to a northern haul road from the quarry site, and help the councillors who will decide this application understand its full consequences.
I would be grateful if you could continue to keep me informed on developments in this case, and with your campaign. You have my full support.
Sincerely,
Duncan
Duncan Hames
Prosepective MP for the Chippenham constituency (Liberal Democrat)
www.duncanhames.org.uk
duncan@duncanhames.org.uk
www.facebook.com/duncanhames
www.twitter.com/duncanhames
I have today (16th March) received the following email from Greg Lester, Planning Officer, Wiltshire Council, kindly forwarded on by Councillor Dick Tonge:
'I refer to your email dated 19 December 2009 in which you called-in the above applications for determination by the Strategic Planning Committee.
It had been intended to present the applications to the 21 April 2010 meeting of the Committee. However, I have today issued the applicant a request for further information in respect of the ecological interests of the site and the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed haul road and mine entrance and storage area. As it will be necessary to consult on and review the further information there is now insufficient time to complete my reports for the April meeting. Consequently, the earliest date the applications will now be reported to the Committee is 12 May 2010, though this will depend on the timely submission of the requested information.'
This means that the earliest date for this meeting will now be the 12th May, and may not even be then if the applicants take their time in re-submitting. So, there is still time to make an objection to these applications if you haven't already done so. You can do this by writing directly to Wiltshire Council or by printing off the Personal Petition Form and sending it in to them.
Every objection really will count.
On Thursday 4th March I met with Sir James and delivered a petition letter signed by 415 villagers.
For those of you who did not see the letter (apologies but we couldn't get around to everyone) it stated our case for the new haul road not to go North through Neston, and simply asked him and the trustees that... 'If there are no other viable routes for the new haul road, then we would ask that you take the other option available to you and do not re-open the mine. You have explained that the lease hasn’t been signed yet and we would ask you and the Trustees to not sign it.'
Unfortunately the letter didn’t seem to make any impact on Sir James. The main impression I got from the meeting was that he still felt that going North with the road was a reasonable thing to do. It appears that he has chosen to wait for the Council to make a decision, rather than to make one himself.
Sir James made the following points to me (my comments and subsequent thoughts are in italics):
1. He thought we were exaggerating the impact that the lorries would have on the area. He said the size of the lorries would be smaller than that shown on our website and in the newsletter, that there would not be as many lorries as we suggest, and that other traffic, such as his milk lorry and his tractors, already use Rough Street, so it’s not a problem.
I pointed out that Corsham School has just implemented a 'walk/cycle to school' scheme, with the backing of the Council, but that if more traffic were to go along Rough Street and either Elley Green or Dicketts road, especially articulated lorries, this would make it dangerous for our children. He said nothing to this.
It is noteworthy that the low-loader lorry shown on our website and in the newsletter is exactly similar to the ones shown on the mining company's website. Further, if the mining company were to use smaller lorries then they would need more of them to move their anticipated 18,000 tonnes of stone extracted a year.
Also, a narrow country lane being is used by a few tractors and a milk lorry, does not mean that larger and heavier vehicles should be deliberately routed along it every day.
2. When I pushed Sir James on the health issues associated with Limestone dust, and the impact of this on the health of children and adults in the area (especially my own daughter), he dismissed this as not being a problem. He said that other roads on the estate were made from the same stone and there isn’t a problem with them.
Limestone dust is a recognised health hazard. Apart from seeming totally insensitive to the health of children & adults living in the village, Sir James appeared not to realise that those other roads do not carry traffic such as that proposed for the new haul road and that these roads are sited away from residential property.
3. Sir James said that the Highways Engineer had told him that the road had to go North. In fact he stated that the Highways Engineer had insisted that it had to ultimately go over Potley Bridge, which he personally disagreed with. When I asked him if he had been at the meeting with the Highways Engineer himself, he said no, he had been told this by the mining company this. I pointed out that Dick Tonge (a local Councillor) had assured me that no such demands by the highways people had been made. Sir James made no response to this.
4. Sir James was adamant that he would not allow the haul road to go West, cutting across Atworth Lane, and through his estate. He was quite forceful on this point!
Well, we would point out that we know how he feels - we don't want the mining traffic coming through our village, close to many houses! If he wishes to make a profit by re-opening the mine, then Sir James has a moral duty to tolerate any noise and disruption associated with making that profit himself, rather than foisting it on the village.
5. Sir James feels that the estate does lots of good things for the village that people don’t know about, and that all this good work balances out the noise, disturbance, traffic and loss of amenity issues that would arise from re-opening Park Lane Mine under the current proposals.
Clearly, no matter how much good work you do (and make a profit at the same time by-the-way) it doesn't negate the need to be a considerate neighbour and cannot justify his apparent disregard for the health and wellbeing of the residents of the very village he claims to be helping in unspecified ways.
I have sent a copy of the petition letter (but not the accompanying signatures) to the Greg Lester at Wiltshire Council so that the Council has it on their records that 415 people have signed it.
I left Sir James with a request to reply to the petition letter, and an offer to put his thoughts on this subject in writing, so that we can distribute it to the village via the website and the newsletter.
We must hope that Sir James will take another look at the petition letter and think again about the strength of feeling in the village about this matter. A more sympathetic and considerate response from him would be very welcome.
On the 28th January the mining company wishing to re-open Park Lane Quarry held an exhibition in the Village Hall.
At the exhibition there were pictures of the old workings, as well as the information that can already be found on the council website. There were a few company representatives there to answer any questions.
Because of the time of the event (3.30pm to 6pm), and although there were quite a few people there, most villagers were still at work by the time it closed.
Unfortunately the company chose to make a lot of misleading statements and misrepresentations of the applications that I feel needs to be addressed here. These are as follows:
1. One of their reps told me that the Council Geologist, Ecologist and Highways Engineer told the company that they couldn't take a new haul road anyway except Northwards because of the geology of the land and the Roman road. On speaking to Dick Tonge (a local councillor) he assured me that the Highways Engineer had said no such thing (he had only spoken to him that morning on this issue!).
2. They supplied a letter on the day stating that there would only be 4 trips a day. They continued to insist there would only be a maximum of 12,000 tonnes and that they just put 18,000 in the application because they had to put something in. But, by putting 18,000 tonnes in the application it means that they could get up to 10 lorry movements a day (and maybe even more in busy times).
3. They supplied a letter on the day stating that the road will be of farm track proportions. They have applied for a 7 meter wide road - this isn’t farm track proportions.
4. One of their reps told me there would be hedgerow along the road to stop the dust, and another told me that there wouldn’t be a hedgerow. It would appear that they themselves are unsure as to what they are going to do.
5. One of their reps told me that the new haul road would be 'coated with hard Mendip stone'. In the application it states that there would be a ‘running surface of compacted stone supplied from the construction of the mine access area’. He even tried to suggest that the surface would be the same as the surface in the Hall car park!
6. They supplied a letter on the day stating ‘there will be no working at weekends or evenings.’ This is untrue. Their application includes working on Saturday’s between 7am and 1pm.
7. One of their reps told me there were no flooding issues. We know that there are. This leads to the question of what money has been put aside for restoration after they have completed mining.
8. One of their reps told me that they would water down the new haul road when necessary to reduce dust. When pressed on the matter he said they would be made to by the council if enough people complained that they were not doing it - leading to the onus being on local residents to police the issue.
9. One of their reps told me that fine dust does not have any detrimental effects on people, even those with asthma. I don’t even have to reply to that statement I wouldn’t have thought!
10. On several occasions I was told directly, and heard other people being told, that as we have no problems with the other mines in the area, namely Monks Park Mine, we should not worry about this one. But, the other mines have direct access to main routes and their vehicles don’t pass through the village. I believe that this will be one of their arguments for re-opening the mine, but it is clearly a red herring.
11. The exhibition itself relied on nostalgia to promote the re-opening of the mine. However, the village has change considerably since the mine was closed, with the main group of houses that would be affected not have even been built then. Traffic through the village, especially along the narrow Rough Street, is much more now and the lorries to be used are much bigger and heavier than those used back in the1960s. Also, health and safety issues are not the same now as they were then, thankfully. We take into consideration much more now the health issues relating to mine dust and it’s affects on the health of people coming into contact with it. Using nostalgia to justify the re-opening of the mine, without taking into account life as it is in 2010, is patently wrong.
If this is how the mining company behaves before they start mining, how are they going to behave if they are granted their applications? If they are happy to misrepresent the facts so blatantly now then it shows they really aren’t going to be too concerned about dealing with noise and dust issues once allowed to go ahead.
If you are not aware, there have been recent applications to re-open Neston Quarry (Park Lane). This Limestone quarry is situated in farmland to the East of the top of Atworth Lane.
The basic details of the applications are as follows:
• The total area to be mined is 200 acres, with mining permission granted until 2042.
• Above ground operations would be 7am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays, 7am to 1pm Saturdays.
• A 7 metre wide haul road would be built across open fields, from the quarry side to the junction of Rough Street and Brockleaze. Heavy, fully laden lorries would then travel down Rough Street and along Elley Green, before leaving the village via Greenhill or the Leafield Industrial Estate.
• Output of up to 18,000 tonnes of Limestone per year is anticipated. This would require an average of 30 lorry movements through Neston each week – more during busy times.
• The new haul road would not be paved, but simply topped by crushed Limestone. It is accepted that this will create dust.
• The haul road would cross the existing Park Lane bridle way. It would be surfaced with crushed Limestone, and it is accepted that use of this road would create dust.
Objections to these applications include:
• Noise generated by stone-handling machinery and vehicles at the mine entrance, which is immediately adjacent to a well-used right of way.
• The complete unsuitability of the local road network, including Rough Street and Elley Green, for the transport of large quantities of stone.
• The loss of agricultural land to the proposed haul road.
• The creation of fine Limestone dust which is a health hazard when inhaled. This dust would threaten Neston residents and all those using the right of way.
• Excessively long above ground working hours, meaning HGVs could be passing through the village earlier then 7am each day. There appears to be no limit on below-ground working and any disturbance from associated noise and vibration.
• Degradation of the amenity value of a substantial tract of countryside and associated rights of way, plus danger to bridleway users.
• Damage to the character of the countryside, including harm to possible bat populations.
• The imposition of a large-scale industrial development on our village.
• Village property values being reduced as the character changes from rural idyll to industrial through-road.
At a meeting just before Christmas the Town Council agreed with these objections and has made a recommendation to Wiltshire Council that these applications be rejected, but they have no actual powers to block them. As these proposals are on such a massive industrial scale, that’s too large for the committee that normally deals with local issues, they have been referred to the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC). The earliest date we have for their considerations is February 17th. Otherwise it may be March 10th or March 31st.
Although the consultation period for objections has ended, the planning authority have said that they will take note of any further objections that are lodged before the SPC meet on this issue.
If you have not done so already, please do make an objection to these applications. You can do this by writing directly to Wiltshire Council or by printing off the Personal Petition Form and sending it in to them.
Every objection really will count.
Full details of these applications may be found at the County Council offices in Trowbridge, or online at Wiltshire Council Application Search Page. Go to this page and 'search' on these two application numbers: 09/02158/WCM and 09/02159/WCM.
If you wish to stay updated on this issue then please join the existing online Social Network. I will continue to pass on any information I get through this website.
Together we can stop our village becoming an industrial access route |
