What is the problem?

Ground based and certain mobile phone masts on buildings and other structures which are less than 15m tall do not need full planning permission instead they are determined by the “prior approval" procedure;.

Unlike applications for full planning permission if the local planning authority FAILS TO NOTIFY the mast operator in writing within the statutory 56 days then by default the operator can install the mast without having any permission from the local planning authority, even if (as in our case) the local planning authority had already decided to refuse the application, the failure to notify in 56 days reverses that decision.   This is the only place anywhere in planning legislation that this occurs - Why?  Normally failure to notify presumes refusal of an application

But if the local planning authority refused approval and informs the operator in time, then permission to erect the mast will be refused?

To make this very clear if the local planning authority refuses approval for the mast but doesn’t inform the operator within 56 days then approval is deemed to have been granted and the operator can erect the mast.

But presumably the mandate of the planning decision is still valid?

No, if the operator doesn’t receive the refusal in writing in time – the planning decision is irrelevant.

But what about all the residents and interested parties whose views were represented by the planning decision?

Irrelevant (or more precisely those residents who expressed views are disenfranchised).

Can you challenge the planning approval?

Not without taking legal action.

So – all the thought and consideration and consultation of local people is overridden by a planning officer getting his numbers wrong?

So it would appear.

Does this happen often?

More often than it should. We are trying to compile a register of communities who have fallen foul of this anomaly. Let us know if you are one of them

Don’t ordinary people have a right to a fair hearing under human rights legislation?

Yes. Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Principles (ECHR) states that we have a right to a fair (and public) hearing

Then is this permission by default legal under European Law?

We think not.

We have applied for leave for judical review of the inspectors decision in relation to the T-mobile mast in Smithy Lane in Bardsey. We believe that this legislation disenfranchises communities from the planning process and is a loophole which benefits the operators at our expense.

What does that mean?

We have to apply to have our argument heard and if leave is given then a judge will hear our case.

What can he do?

He could disagree with us and the mast and the legislation stays

Or

He could agree that our human rights have been violated by the decision and allow the issues to be heard and considered in the decision

Or

He could either reverse the permission, effectively requiring the mast to be taken down, or send the application back to the Planning Inspector telling him to make a new decision in accordance with the law as stated by the court.

And the legislation?

He could rule that it is incompatible with European law and we could be given a certificate of incompatibility to present to the government – who would need to act on it. Or as it is secondary legislation he could strike the law down himself, but that is extremely unlikely, if anything he would be likely to take the first course of action and refer it back to the Government to take action.

Is anyone else doing anything about all this?

Yes, Conservative MP Richard Spring is introducing a Private Members Bill, the aim of which is to challenge this and the other loopholes in mast legislation. The Bill will be presented for its Second Reading to the House of Commons on the 21st May 2004 (PLEASE ASK YOUR LOCAL MP TO SUPPORT THE BILL). To view a copy of the Bill click on the linkTown and Country Planning (Telecommunication Masts) Bill 2004

How can you help?

We have a number of special events and projects being arranged to help us raise funds, please support these full details of such events will be availble on this site ass details are released. An example is the ongoing 'SPONSORED WALK' click HERE for more info.

We need donations to allow us to take this case forward please support us by making donations to the Planning Sanity legal fund in one of several ways:

Ok so what has Bardsey to do with it

A Brief History of the Smithy Lane Mast

The Longer Version

In March 2002 T-mobile applied to Leeds City Council for prior approval to erect a 12.5 m mast in a field adjacent to Smithy lane in Bardsey.

This site is in the greenbelt and area of Special Scientific Interest and adjacent to the conservation area which encircles the old part of the village and the village pond

The purpose of this mast was to correct a small gap in coverage along the A58(T) where only outdoor reception was available

Over 80 residents objected in writing on grounds of countryside issues loss of visual amenity, spoiling the character of the countryside, concerns about the health effects of the masts emissions – and glaring lack or real need for a mast at this site.

In May Leeds City Council duly met and considered the application and it was refused.T-mobile were informed of this refusal and Residents who had objected were informed in writing that the application had been refused

We felt a sensible decision had been made and felt pleased that the council had properely considered our concerns.

On the 2^nd December 2002 a large lorry with a mast appeared at the village pond and with a long tubular structure and got stuck. It then became apparent that the mast base had already been built some time before

We contacted Leeds City Council who confirmed that T-mobile intended to erect the mast even though the application had been refused.

We were assured that it had been properly refused however on contacting T-mobile the villagers were told “We intend to develop this site”

At this stage we did not understand the legislation and so embarked on 3 weeks of direct action – blocking access persuading reasonable contractors to desist until the planning approval was given

Leeds City Council issued enforcement orders against the base and entered into negotiations with T- mobile this included suggesting alternative sites much closer to the road and with which the coverage would match the area of low coverage that T mobile had initially identified, (compared with the much wider coverage of the Smithy lane mast which would be increasing emissions in the village by a factor of 100 for no benefit to residents, as coverage is excellent already.)

Residents gave up Chrismas preparations and effectively prevented work continuing but on the first Monday after the holidays the mast was erected.

Leeds City Council issued a second enforcement order against the mast and work on the electricity supply continued.

T-mobile then appealed against the enforcement orders on the grounds of their already having approval and – that approval should have been given.

Over 70 villagers wrote to the Inspectorate to object to their appeal and a Public Inquiry was ordered.

Residents organised themselves into a Rule 6 party received bundles of paperwork and presented their case at the public inquiry - after months of hard work and research ,

The inspector upheld t mobile’s appeal on the grounds that the refusal had been received outside the 56 day determination period and that concerns of residents “did not fall to be considered”

We have taken legal advice paying for including Barristers opinion (David Wolfe) and decided to challenge both the decision and the legislation but this is expensive and risky.

How can you help