Ghost Ships
No U-turn over 'ghost ships'
COUNCILLORS yesterday vowed to stand by their decision to refuse the controversial "ghost ships" plans - despite the threat of a costly appeal.
A scheme to scrap the unwanted US naval ships at a North-East yard was turned down by Hartlepool councillors last month.
Members of the planning committee met behind closed doors yesterday to discuss a possible U-turn.
After debating the issue again, councillors unexpectedly decided to stand by their decision.
The announcement was a blow to Able UK and its hopes of making the North-East a global specialist in ship dismantling.
But one councillor held out the prospect that a new application by the company could be given the go-ahead.
Independent borough councillor Stan Kaiser - who supports the scheme - predicted a fresh application from the company within six months.
He said: "Since the company now know what the council want, they can put in what will be effectively a perfect application.
"I am delighted at this latest decision, because it allows all of the background and nonsense of the last three years to be forgotten.
"Able UK can now make a new application very quickly."
If Able UK decides to press on with the current plan it can lodge an appeal.
Coun Kaiser said this could prove a financial disaster for the local authority. If it loses an appeal, the council would face a £600,000 bill for costs.
The company has faced fierce objections since the first three US ships arrived in Hartlepool three years ago.
Able reckons its plan would create 749 jobs. Critics say rusting ships should be scrapped in their own countries - not in the North-East.
Following the meeting, Able UK's chairman and chief executive Peter Stephenson said: "It is very disappointing that Hartlepool Borough Council planning committee have not taken the opportunity to reconsider our planning applications.
"This had the potential to create 749 quality, permanent jobs and benefits to North-East suppliers of around £50m per annum.
"Despite officers providing the committee with a comprehensive report, which confirmed there were no objections from any statutory consultees, including the Environment Agency and Natural England, formerly English Nature, the committee still discussed a number of topics that were both untrue and misleading."
6:02am Tuesday 7th November 2006
Print 
Email this
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
