With respect, I would have thought it necessary to object to the amended application as well, whether or not you are in favour of a temporary installation but if you are, in any event, against a permanent facility:
The objections currently filed were of course in relation to the old application and will not carry the same, if any, weight in relation to the amended proposal.
I was quite sceptical at first, to say the least, but have since learned enough to make me at least suspect that the temporary project could very well be a test case to set a local planning precedent for something permanent.
The old proposal lacked precise details for the immediate removal of the temporary installation and the full restoration of the area, and another concern ought to be the impact on local heritage to the extent that any permanent damage is inflicted.
Our internet connection speed at home does not invite a thorough review of the revised proposal, and the relevant site is blocked from the office as potentially unsafe, so my apologies if concerns like the ones above have now been dealt with satisfactorily.
The new consultation period ends on 26 November 2011.