Marlborough Mast Appeal Allowed by Inspector
Well said! So what now!?!?!
Pete.
--------
Pete
I suggest you see if your planning authority will challenge this decision. They can appeal on the grounds this decision wasn't right. Your MPs involvement may help in getting this.
Failing that and possibly anyway residents may want to write to the chief executive at the planning inspectorate in Bristol - Katrine Sporle challenging was the decision fair, transparent, open, consistent and impartial. Was justice done and seen to be done. What criteria was planning inspector instructed to use. what training did the inspector have, how did the decision compare with others - cite Bath where I live - a recent decision where inspector said visually unacceptable so why was mast considered visually acceptable in Malborough. Inconsistent!
Also get a copy of what documents operator submitted. Chances are there is something wrong with something. They shove in a load of technical data assuming it won't be challenged. particularly as regards the coverage data which is usually seriously flawed. eg the same coverage and technical data for a 12.5 meter high 2g mast won't apply to a 3g mast. - Sometimes information the operators provide is verging on being so deliberately false that it is verging on fraud as in a case I am involved with at the moment. So there could be ways forward.
Sian
--------
You can always appeal based on article 174 of the European Treaty, precuationary principle, if there is enough evidence (even if scientific proof is not 100%) authorities have to decrease the risk by precautionary measures, this even goes first above existing contracts.
The evidence of real life (cases) and the 8 epidemiologic and 2 provocative research on masts and people in the vicinity (see http://www.stopumts.nl/english.php ) plus half of the laboratory findings is enough evidence.
Of course if you can proove the permit was wrong or the decision making was not democratic or else, it is nice, but don't use too much energy for this, in the end it is an environmental pollution with impact on health (including well-being, according to the WHO-definition). Rio 1992, European Treaty art. 174.
--------
pete
Paragraph 10 of the planning system general principles - a document produced by ODPM - states that local planning authorities must determine planning applications in accordance with the statutory development plan unless material considerations determine otherwise.
I assume the planning authority said the mast was contrary to the local plan and the planning inspector may have said need for the mast was a material planning consideration which overwrites this or words to that effect. I think the planning authority could challenge that. A material consideration must be genuine and the development in the public interest.
Who says the need for a mast is a material planning consideration? on what basis is need a material consideration? Who's need? What need? Need for what? Who needs a 3g mast? You could argue there is no need. They need 80% of population by 2007 - but 80% isn't a 100%.
You may want to read the inspector's report and see if there is anything that you can persuade the local authority (perhaps councillors first) that they can appeal over. But remember time limits on appeals.
In a case in Bath a year ago an inspector overruled the planning committee's refusal and gave 02 permission. The councillors didn't know they could have appealled and residents didn't know planning authority could appeal. Residents were badly advised on their rights to appeal inspector's decision and deadline had then passed.
So I challenged planning inspectorate decision myself with the residents and planning inspectorate admitted their decison was flawed but said they had no legislative powers to change decision. So we went on a media campaign with councillors support as they were so angry and with MPs support on grounds that a) planning committee decision to refuse mast was overruled by planning inspectorate and planning inspector report was terrible. b) planning inspector then admitted decision to overrule was flawed
Councillors were prepared to revoke planning permission as they were so angry about the way the whole thing had been handled and called a meeting to do it. 02 came along to meeting and said they wouldn't build the mast but look for another site so they met councillors and went to look at other sites. They have so far stuck to their word and are expected to submit a planning application soon for another site. They may still try and build the mast although councillors say they wouldn't dare. If your councillors can be persuaded that they must protect their town and their residents they could do the same.
Sian
--------
From Karen Barratt
I do not think removing John Prescott would make any difference. Just before the the last election an announcement was promised from the ODPM re: response to Stewart update etc. I was told on very good authority that there would be some "movement" on planning which while not going as far as Mast Sanity would like, would at least be "radical" by ODPM standards. In the event it was delayed amid the calling of the election and all we got was a bland statement from Yvette Cooper promising "research" into the issue. When I asked my source what had happened I was told that the ODPM proposals had been blocked by No.10 and the DTI. Many MPs are concerned about the situation (they're certainly aware of it) but the problem is that govt policy is being driven by vested interests and an obsession with technology as a solution to all our problems.
Pete.
--------
Pete
I suggest you see if your planning authority will challenge this decision. They can appeal on the grounds this decision wasn't right. Your MPs involvement may help in getting this.
Failing that and possibly anyway residents may want to write to the chief executive at the planning inspectorate in Bristol - Katrine Sporle challenging was the decision fair, transparent, open, consistent and impartial. Was justice done and seen to be done. What criteria was planning inspector instructed to use. what training did the inspector have, how did the decision compare with others - cite Bath where I live - a recent decision where inspector said visually unacceptable so why was mast considered visually acceptable in Malborough. Inconsistent!
Also get a copy of what documents operator submitted. Chances are there is something wrong with something. They shove in a load of technical data assuming it won't be challenged. particularly as regards the coverage data which is usually seriously flawed. eg the same coverage and technical data for a 12.5 meter high 2g mast won't apply to a 3g mast. - Sometimes information the operators provide is verging on being so deliberately false that it is verging on fraud as in a case I am involved with at the moment. So there could be ways forward.
Sian
--------
You can always appeal based on article 174 of the European Treaty, precuationary principle, if there is enough evidence (even if scientific proof is not 100%) authorities have to decrease the risk by precautionary measures, this even goes first above existing contracts.
The evidence of real life (cases) and the 8 epidemiologic and 2 provocative research on masts and people in the vicinity (see http://www.stopumts.nl/english.php ) plus half of the laboratory findings is enough evidence.
Of course if you can proove the permit was wrong or the decision making was not democratic or else, it is nice, but don't use too much energy for this, in the end it is an environmental pollution with impact on health (including well-being, according to the WHO-definition). Rio 1992, European Treaty art. 174.
--------
pete
Paragraph 10 of the planning system general principles - a document produced by ODPM - states that local planning authorities must determine planning applications in accordance with the statutory development plan unless material considerations determine otherwise.
I assume the planning authority said the mast was contrary to the local plan and the planning inspector may have said need for the mast was a material planning consideration which overwrites this or words to that effect. I think the planning authority could challenge that. A material consideration must be genuine and the development in the public interest.
Who says the need for a mast is a material planning consideration? on what basis is need a material consideration? Who's need? What need? Need for what? Who needs a 3g mast? You could argue there is no need. They need 80% of population by 2007 - but 80% isn't a 100%.
You may want to read the inspector's report and see if there is anything that you can persuade the local authority (perhaps councillors first) that they can appeal over. But remember time limits on appeals.
In a case in Bath a year ago an inspector overruled the planning committee's refusal and gave 02 permission. The councillors didn't know they could have appealled and residents didn't know planning authority could appeal. Residents were badly advised on their rights to appeal inspector's decision and deadline had then passed.
So I challenged planning inspectorate decision myself with the residents and planning inspectorate admitted their decison was flawed but said they had no legislative powers to change decision. So we went on a media campaign with councillors support as they were so angry and with MPs support on grounds that a) planning committee decision to refuse mast was overruled by planning inspectorate and planning inspector report was terrible. b) planning inspector then admitted decision to overrule was flawed
Councillors were prepared to revoke planning permission as they were so angry about the way the whole thing had been handled and called a meeting to do it. 02 came along to meeting and said they wouldn't build the mast but look for another site so they met councillors and went to look at other sites. They have so far stuck to their word and are expected to submit a planning application soon for another site. They may still try and build the mast although councillors say they wouldn't dare. If your councillors can be persuaded that they must protect their town and their residents they could do the same.
Sian
--------
From Karen Barratt
I do not think removing John Prescott would make any difference. Just before the the last election an announcement was promised from the ODPM re: response to Stewart update etc. I was told on very good authority that there would be some "movement" on planning which while not going as far as Mast Sanity would like, would at least be "radical" by ODPM standards. In the event it was delayed amid the calling of the election and all we got was a bland statement from Yvette Cooper promising "research" into the issue. When I asked my source what had happened I was told that the ODPM proposals had been blocked by No.10 and the DTI. Many MPs are concerned about the situation (they're certainly aware of it) but the problem is that govt policy is being driven by vested interests and an obsession with technology as a solution to all our problems.
Starmail - 11. Aug, 17:43
