Details

Parent Category: Actions

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

Details

Parent Category: Actions

Boycotting organisations that insist on having masts on their property regardless of their neighbours concerns can be very effective.  We always recommend that if local organisations are doing this then local residents should publicise the issue and ask for boycott support.  Picketing and protesting outside the organisations properties can be very effective - even the branches without the masts/antennae.

Read more: Boycotting

Details

Parent Category: Actions

Class Action - Campaigners suffering from the numerous loopholes in legislation are planning a class action.  Note as in the 56 day loophole  there is the potential to take each loophole forward separately if there is more interest in one particular loophole.  

56 Day action - Bardsey mast group, Leeds  are challenging this loophole.  The group have got a written opinion from leading barrister David Wolfe.  The opinion is very positive.  They now need raise funds for the action and / or make this into a class action by getting similar groups involved who have suffered because of the 56 day loop hole.  Get in touch via the advice line if you are interested in this case.

Skelt(Sept 03)  - Got agreed that the guidelines regarding not considering health beyond ICNIRP is unlawful.  Government caved in and agreed before it got to court... They KNEW they were wrong!!!!

Phillips(Oct 03) - useful decision backing up previous decision and also makes the point that sensible alternative sites should be used if local opinion is against one siting.

Prior cases - briefing

Newport county Borough Council v The Secretary of State for Wales and Browning Ferris Environmental Services Ltd Perceived health effects material planning consideration

Regina v Tandridge District Council, ex party Al Fayed

other court cases and judgments

 

Details

Parent Category: Actions

If you have any information about other Churches' policies on the erection of masts please let me know.  This is becoming an increasing problem.

If you are having a problem with a mast application in a church or an existing mast in a church then contact the This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. as they are always interested in covering this issue

Roman Catholic Church

Unknown policy on siting on the churches. However there are several known cases where Roman Catholic Primary and Secondary schools have masts erected on their property.

Church of England

At present it is up to the local vicar, however the Church policy is to encourage this to happen.  The church now encourages and accepts mobile phone antennae on church property and have set up a website for information on how to go about it.

Unfortunately though often the Church involved does use local planning authoritiy rules, if they choose they do not have to go through local planning.  So they don't have to consider what you say and as far as the church is concerned when using these powers they don't care what you think either.

however if this is the case still use your local councillors to put pressure on the vicar and the church council.  Use the fact aht they are YOUR elected representatives.

The complicated church governance route does, however, provide an extra means of objecting - with the chance that success may be gained even when the Planning Department or the vicar rules against you.

The decision by a parish to agree to a phone company's request to site a mast on their church is taken by the Vicar and the local Parochial Church Council (PCC). They are independent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but do have central guidelines as suggestions. But ultimately they are the decision making body.

Local churches are not beyond trying to hide their applications. In a recent case in Bradford the decision was kept secret for 15 months and then mentioned in the Church magazine at the same time that planning was applied for.

Sometimes a diocese can have a policy against masts - Sheffield does, Wakefield does not!  It varies considerably so check out the local policy!!

Initially lobby your Vicar, but at the same time lobby his Bishop.  Get your MP and Councillors (as well as all the parishioners) to do the same.

The church legal route is through the Diocesan Registrar. You obtain formal complaint forms from this officer, but, beware, there are cut off dates to watch! The details of the names and addresses of the Registrar and Chancellor should be publicised on the church noticeboard or in the church. You could ask the Vicar or get them from a copy of the Planning Application, as the church and phone company are joint petitioners for planning permission.

The decision to approve changes to the structure of the church are judged by the Worshipful Chancellor. Formal protestors, who have completed the official objection forms, have the right to attend the hearing. If the Chancellor turns the application down then you have won

The Bradford campaign had started these proceedings and the Chancellor was going to hold the hearing the day after the Planning Committee decision. However, as a result of pressure from the local residents, the Vicar withdrew from the planning application 24 hours before the Planning Committee met, therefore the hearing did not go ahead.  The grounds on which the Vicar and his PCC decided to stop the mast were - on the disunity in the Parish - the campaign had established 150 letters of objections to Planning, a petition of 500, and a public meeting - headed by the MP and attended by 80 people with no voices raised in favour of the mast.  This is a perfect example of a campaign showing public opinion is important to the church.

If fellow campaigners are fighting their local Vicar, hopefully, if they can persuade the Vicar that there is substantial opposition to the proposed mast then the Vicar will stop it to prevent disunity and disharmony in the Parish - this is the overriding factor that they will succumb to. If not complain to higher forces! Bishop, Archbishop.

Other things to try:-

Get the locals to boycott the Church.  The reason they decide to accept the masts in the first place is MONEY.  If they didn't get the money the Churches would not even entertain the idea of such offensive technology in the churches.  Without their parishioners a church cannot survive, regardless of how much money they have.

Protest outside the church at every service. Many of the parishoners will be unaware of the mast application - let them know your feelings - give them lots of info

Get lots of publicity.  Report all your stories/campaigns to the local media but also don't forget to let the Church media know:-

If this is not your issue, but you are a member of the church (any church) please consider writing to the controlling body explaining your worries and fears and let them know you do not want mobile phone masts to be sited in places of worship. Let them know that the siting of masts of church schools is totally unacceptable.