News RSS Feed


Mast planning rules shake-up

7:00pm Sunday 25th February 2007

comment Comments (29)   Have your say »


CHANGES to Borough of Poole's planning rules mean applications for many mobile phone masts will never go before councillors.

Masts below 15 metres have "prior approval" status, a procedure where permission is deemed granted if the planning authority does not respond to the developer's application within 56 days.

Councillors used to have the facility to "red flag" these applications and bring them before the committee, usually when neighbours complained.

But last month it was agreed prior approval applications would be excluded from that process.

Peter Watson, head of planning, said the move had been made because these applications rarely came before committee for timing reasons. The date an application was submitted often meant the 56-day response deadline ran out before it could be scheduled for a meeting.

But Cllr Mike Brooke is fighting to have the decision reversed, and calling for extra planning meetings to make sure these applications have a chance to be heard.

"It removes the rights of the residents to see an open, transparent debate at committee," he said. "The decision will be made in a back office.

"It might be done in collaboration with a councillor, but the public won't get to see it."

He said he would be "calling in" the decision to be discussed at next month's scrutiny committee.

Steve Barker, of Sorrel Gardens, is leading a campaign against plans for a 12- metre mobile phone mast on the corner of Pinesprings Drive and Beechbank Avenue in Broadstone.

So far, 70 letters of complaint have been sent and 200 signatures gathered on a petition.

The 46-year-old IT development director said: "Residents feel this is one of the biggest planning issues affecting them. To downgrade it and remove these applications from the full democratic process can only be for the benefit of the planning committee rather than residents."

Mr Watson said the changes in the "red card" procedure simply formalised what was already being done.

He added: "Changes to the procedure ensure that informed decisions relating to mobile phone masts are always made within the correct time scales."

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourThisisdorset

tony, Broadstone says...
9:21pm Sun 25 Feb 07

What is the problem with a phone mast here? The mobile signal around Pinesprings is very poor and needs boosting. There is no proven problems with phone masts so I think the council is right to go ahead with them as they propose.

Report this post »

Dave Turner BNP, Bournemouth says...
11:42pm Sun 25 Feb 07

Well let them put one up in your back garden Tony, or would that be a bit too close to home

Report this post »

steve,, Broadstone says...
11:50pm Sun 25 Feb 07

The problem is that this mast will make a negligible differnce to T-Mobile reception in Creekmoor (the target area) due to the poor choice of location. So any alleged benefit is more than outweighed by the genuine fears that residents have about having unsightly masts with unproven health risks in residential areas.

Report this post »

Dom De Vitto, Pinesprings says...
9:23am Mon 26 Feb 07

tony wrote:
What is the problem with a phone mast here? The mobile signal around Pinesprings is very poor and needs boosting. There is no proven problems with phone masts so I think the council is right to go ahead with them as they propose.
This is utter rubbish.
ICNIRP (the EU agency that the government listens to) research shows that Child Leukemia is 'NOT LIKELY to be UNRELATED to EME (e.g. phone masts).
The government is spending £7.5m determining exactly what is 'safe', because nobody is sure! (Ref. Stewart Report)

Report this post »

Dom De Vitto, Pinesprings says...
9:28am Mon 26 Feb 07

tony wrote:
What is the problem with a phone mast here? The mobile signal around Pinesprings is very poor and needs boosting. There is no proven problems with phone masts so I think the council is right to go ahead with them as they propose.
Sorry Tony, look at the planning application. Pinesprings reception won't be getting any better, only Creekmoor. This is because the mast will be transmitting (head-high) though our homes - so the signal won't reach yours.

Report this post »

Dom De Vitto, Pinesprings says...
9:30am Mon 26 Feb 07

Please note: the protest site for this mast is www.pinesprings.info

Report this post »

Percy, Poole says...
12:46pm Mon 26 Feb 07

Yet again, council officers prove their disdain for members. Just when are the members going to get a bit of stiffening in their spines and say 'enough is enough'. It's time for the elected to take back the power. I'm reminded of the old wartime view of the US soldiers, except that some council officers are overpaid, over-reaching, and overdue for a slap.

Report this post »

Simon, Bournemouth says...
12:51pm Mon 26 Feb 07

None of the very extensive research has shown any link between health issues and mobile phone masts. If Dom can mention the ICNIRP publication title then I would certainly like to read it.
I would put forward that the language of science used in reports - which avoids citing certainty without absolute proof - is usually interpreted incorrectly in alarmist terms by the public and media alike.

Report this post »

Percy, Poole says...
1:00pm Mon 26 Feb 07

The health implications are only one dimension. The masts are also intrusive and ugly, and without doubt impact on quality of amenity, and possibly house prices.

Report this post »

Cllr Philip Eades, Civic Centre Poole says...
1:34pm Mon 26 Feb 07

Many of these masts can be stopped in inappropriate locations if the campaign against is focussed and relevant. I have just had a mast refused in my ward near Tangerine on Alder Road as T-Mobile didn't investigate mast sharing or check out enough other local alternative sites

Report this post »

Simon, Bournemouth says...
2:12pm Mon 26 Feb 07

Percy - the masts are no uglier than telegraph poles, street lights or sewer stacks. Or neglected trees. In a world where it were possible to prove a negative - and masts were known to be totally safe - proximity to a mast would be considered a positive assett for property. In the same way that proximity to a gas, telephone and sewerage services is.
It is time we all grew out of this irrational fear and expended energy on known risks to health.

Report this post »

Dom De Vitto, Pinesprings says...
4:23pm Mon 26 Feb 07

Simon wrote:
None of the very extensive research has shown any link between health issues and mobile phone masts. If Dom can mention the ICNIRP publication title then I would certainly like to read it.
I would put forward that the language of science used in reports - which avoids citing certainty without absolute proof - is usually interpreted incorrectly in alarmist terms by the public and media alike.
You are wrong. The language is clear, according to both scientific evidence AND statistical likelihood. Reference:
ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING
ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC, AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
(UP TO 300 GHz).
Quote: "The findings
relating to leukemia are the most consistent. Out of 13
studies all but five reported relative risk
estimates of between 1.5 and 3.0.".

This is as close to PROVEN as statistics gets.

Try Google with 'ICNIRP child leukemia' for tons of other clear references.

Report this post »

SImon, Bournemouth says...
5:48pm Mon 26 Feb 07

Dom - you kinda prove my point. The scientific language "most consistent" does not give any information regarding proof of evidence. It is saying that some other studies found a small correlation between leukemia clusters and power lines. But there are likely to be lots of other causal factors too. Maybe weedkiller used around the base of the pylons?! And... the context of the quoted paper is high-power transmission lines. Not mobile phone masts.

Report this post »

Cllr. Mike Brooke, Broadstone says...
8:18pm Mon 26 Feb 07

Many of these comments are missing the point. Residents have the right to be heard in open debate at committee. This decision is removing that right. It also gives further credence to the phone companies who have been exploiting a loop hole in the planning schedules. Like Cllr Eades I have had masts refused, but the companies keep coming back again and again. Is it not only fair that the public at least have the right to openness in decision making, especially if the site is believed to be sensitive or controversial? Surely it is wrong for the planning committee to remove that right for the sake of convenience.

Report this post »

Dom De Vitto, Pinesprings says...
9:02pm Mon 26 Feb 07

Mike brings this back on topic nicely.
Whatever the opinion, we ('the people') should have a way to express our opinion through our elected officials. In controversial situations 'the rules' must not only BE applied with care, but be SEEN, publicly, to be applied with care.

We have been denied this right, and worse, their reasoning has been proved void - to the direct and immediate detriment of pinesprings residents!

Report this post »

Mark, Pokesdown says...
9:48pm Mon 26 Feb 07

Maybe the story is badly worded. Sounds like the planning department were red flagging applications but the planning committee were not meeting often enough. So they have stopped bothering! Simple solution - if 56 days is integral to the planning process, the planning committee must meet often enough to be effective. Can't blame the phone companies. They must be laughing!

Report this post »

Ruth, Poole says...
12:06am Tue 27 Feb 07

'It was decided' - by whom & after what consultation? I agree with Mark of Pokesdown's solution for the planning meetings to be held more often. It seems as though, yet again, we are being told what we're getting rather than being asked what we want. I hope that whoever is responsible for this decision is going to hold their hands up. If it's Councillors, well, there's an election shortly. If it's a Council official can we ask who gave him/her the right to make this change?

Report this post »

David, Poole says...
10:01am Tue 27 Feb 07

Just looked at some of the mast awareness type websites. They are full of alarmist pseudo-science claptrap. Also, they do seem to be geared toward collecting money! With 0870 phone numbers and donate buttons. No wonder people are concerned. To those living near this mast I say, do not worry. The worry itself is the only thing that will damage your health.

Report this post »

TonyJ, Swanage says...
4:05pm Tue 27 Feb 07

Well said, David, Poole! I can see a mobile repeater antenna in the car park, from my back door and feel remarkably well for my age. I also use a mobile phone as, I daresay, do most of the protesters on this website.

I don'd know what the fuss is about!

It's that NIMBY syndrome yet again!

Report this post »

Frank Plowright, says...
4:16pm Wed 28 Feb 07

E-mail sent to Peter Watson today:
I've just read an article in the Dorset Daily Echo in which you note that your department is unable to process prior approval notifications submitted by mobile phone companies and their agents within the legally required 56 day period. Instead of being ashamed of this gross administrative incompetence, you have offered it up as an excuse for a policy that will have the effect of blanket approval.

You're an appalling excuse for an administrator and I sincerely wish you become a victim of your short-sighted abrogation of civic duty.

Frank Plowright

Report this post »

Gordon, Wimborne says...
5:11pm Wed 28 Feb 07

Why should mobile phone masts be treated differently if I want to put a flagpole in my garden am I exempt from planing regs? Am I wrong but have these companies not erected masts without submitting proper plans proving that the public should exercise more vigilance not less.
If the present planners cannot reply within the time limit increase the application charge on masts to cover the cost of extra staff.

Report this post »

Percy, Poole says...
5:47pm Wed 28 Feb 07

I'm impressed we have so many experts on the effects of microwave radiation on the human body living in the region - I feel a whole lot better for their reassurances that the science is claptrap, and we don't need to worry...
To echo earlier comments, this isn't really about the health or visual impact of masts, but about paid officials deciding willy-nilly that residents and councillors will have no oportunity to question those impacts.

Report this post »

Stig, The dump (Pinesprings) says...
5:55pm Wed 28 Feb 07

All this new-fangled elecktrickery ! Come on you Luddites! get rid of your mobiles - lets all live in caves and communicate with smoke signals!

Report this post »

john, poole says...
10:31pm Wed 28 Feb 07

Well if you will reject masts located away from civilisation on heathland you must expect they will be sited next to houses. After all we know lizards and birds are far more important to Poole council than humans.

Report this post »

sean, oakdale says...
8:46pm Thu 1 Mar 07

I want to no what Cllr
Leverett thinks about this as it his administration that is running Poole yet no one is listening which seems to be the case why are they taking The People of Poole right to have there say does he forget who put him were he is and has been for the last four years.
We do have a right to this debate and so does those councillors who want to do so also .

Report this post »

nick, Broadstone says...
2:25pm Fri 2 Mar 07

Mobile phone masts have to be located very close to the area that they are intended to serve. This is especially the case with 3G coverage.

They are not dangerous. The ICNIRP guidelines are very restrictive to the mobile phone companies, more so than the old NRPB guidelines. In all honesty, microwave owens and your hoover will emit greater emmissions than any mast. The closer you are to a mast, means that your phone has to emit less power attempting to log on to it. So ironically, the closer to a mast you are, the less you will be impacted by the emissions from your phone. (Which is close to your head and brain!)

Masts below 15m are subject to the GPDO process which in the current planning climate, means that the information submitted in an application is essentially the same as what would be submitted in a Full Planning application. It just means that the council have 56 days to make a decision. If the planning committee sat more regularly, all applications could be properly considered. The applications are generally very detailed, as the phone companies need to make sure they have covered all bases in case they need to appeal the decision.

Can I suggest the best way forward is to try to engage in dialogue with T mobile. If you can offer up alternative locations or design suggestions, it makes sense for them to investigate. They want an easy ride too, so if a mutually acceptable solution can be found, then everyone is happy.

If T mobile persist with their current location and you can suggest that they have not investigated the options you put forward, the liklihood is that the application will fail, buying you guys more time.


Report this post »

David, Broadstone says...
10:02pm Fri 2 Mar 07

It seems to me that the problem lies not with T-mobile (or any other outfit) but with the jobsworths of Poole planning department. They are just not performing! In normal business life they would have to work harder and faster to keep up with the work. Their option seems to be to avoid their responsibilities to their customers (us!). Can we get any councillors to fire up the Poole Planning Department to do their job properly? If not, can we get them made redundant, on the grounds of non-performance of their duties?

Report this post »

Steve, Broadstone says...
7:20pm Sun 4 Mar 07

David wrote:
It seems to me that the problem lies not with T-mobile (or any other outfit) but with the jobsworths of Poole planning department. They are just not performing! In normal business life they would have to work harder and faster to keep up with the work. Their option seems to be to avoid their responsibilities to their customers (us!). Can we get any councillors to fire up the Poole Planning Department to do their job properly? If not, can we get them made redundant, on the grounds of non-performance of their duties?
That's not really a fair conclusion. The planning department have turned down previous applications for masts, which can inevitably lead to appeals from the phone companies (who will not give up until they get their way).

Report this post »

steve, poole says...
7:09pm Thu 22 Mar 07

vodaphone are planning to put a 15M mast in the clump, right where i live, so i will be able to see it through my window. the clump is a great place that should not be devistated by a 15m mast. i dont care about the supposed health risks, but its the eye sore that is the worst.

Report this post »

Comments are closed on this article.

In this section

Essential Links

Sponsored Links



Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »