REAPPLICATION to develop coastal land is still not justified.
Plans to develop Beadnell’s coastal land that are indistinguishable from those rejected at the planning meeting on 7/5/11 are going to be considered once again.
The planning department is once again ignoring the fact that an exceptional case to develop has not been established.
An exceptional case to develop Beadnell’s coastal land can only exist because the harbour is unable to generate sufficient income to cover the costs of its annual maintenance.
Two hundred years of continual use by boats is testimony to the fact of how successful Beadnell’s harbour is in doing this.
This success in generating income would continue if boat activity were restored to former levels. This has not been allowed to happen.
As fishing activity has declined, appeals to allow the spare capacity in the harbour to be made available to those who are prepared to pay have been rejected.
This reveals that the crisis in funding the harbour is self-inflicted.
Mr Wall knows that it is impossible to get evidence that the harbour is incapable of generating sufficient income to cover its costs of maintenance without proving the contrary.
This is why he deliberately ignores the only option that could possibly establish an exceptional case to develop – that of increased use of the harbour.
The responsibility for allowing Mr Wall to ignore this crucial option must be laid squarely with the planning department.
In the planning application section exceptional case ‘exploration of viable options,’ Mr Wall’s case to develop consists of nothing more than the refusal by three charities to provide temporary funding.
Failure to obtain temporary funding for the harbour is not evidence that the harbour is incapable of sustaining itself. Remove this irrelevant information from the planning document and the section ‘Exploration of viable options’ disappears and with it the bogus exceptional case to develop.
Mr Wall’s prime concern is to gain approval to develop Beadnell’s coastal land. The destruction of precious assets currently enjoyed by all is the true cost of his house on the White Rock site.
This sorry saga shows that we have a planning department that has little inclination to enforce planning policies. It supports a bogus exceptional case to develop.
It is unable to distinguish the difference between recommending development and that of promoting it.
It has scant regard for the county’s ‘Love Northumberland’ campaign and, as a consequence, Northumberland’s natural assets, heritage and history are anything but safe in its hands.
It is only an aberrant planning process that would allow this development to proceed.
If these proposals to develop are approved it would give the message that it is right to continue destroying irreplaceable natural assets and heritage that rightly belongs to all.
G Wilde (Mr),