Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 2nd December 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

100 object... but council blunder gives mobile phone mast the go-ahead



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
03 December 2007
A COUNCIL bungle means a mobile phone company can put up a mast – despite a massive campaign of objection.
Nearly 100 letters and a petition were sent to Calderdale Council over Vodafone's plan for a mast in Granny Hall Lane, Brighouse.

Planning officials backed residents, believing it would dwarf the area and cause "visual clutter." They suggested an alternative site be found.

Residents believed their campaign in 2005 had been successful – only to find workmen preparing the site. Now council bosses are to apologise to all residents who objected, explaining why the mast has been allowed.

A spokeswoman said because the proposed mast was below 15 metres, it did not require planning permission.

"However, local authorities can request the siting and appearance of a mast to be considered if it responds within 56 days of being notified," she said.

"The council's request was not received by Vodafone within the time limit. Unfortunately, as a result of this administrative error, Vodafone have the necessary consent."

The council and Vodafone have failed to find an alternative site and the council said it was now investigating how the mistake happened.

Councillor Joyce Caw-thra said: "I have been told two letters were put in one envelope and that is why Vodafone never got a reply," said Coun Cawthra (Con, Brighouse).

"I will back any action residents' want to take. It needs a solicitor to see if this mistake should impact so much on residents."

Karen Johnson, whose Blackburn Road home overlooks the site, which is used for recreation, said: "It is incompetence and residents should have been kept informed on such a sensitive matter."

She wants further consideration given to an alternative site and suggested the cemetery 50 yards away.

She is demanding to know what action was being taken against the person responsible.

Keith Laycock, of Granny Hall Lane, said: "It's disgraceful when the people taxpayers pay for don't act on something."

The full article contains 332 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 December 2007 4:10 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Halifax
 
Prev
1
2
1

,

03/12/2007 19:05:56
Comment Reported Unsuitable By User
2

jigsaw,

Halifax 03/12/2007 19:54:02
Proves what I`ve always said - if you think you`re unemployable, you haven`t tried the council.
3

nay nay,

03/12/2007 20:21:25
(council) thumbs up there anal passages as per usual, cant they get anything right?!!!!!!
4

Hx Dukes Calipso,

03/12/2007 22:13:34
absolute typicall CLOWN HALL ! action at its very best
5

Richard Langford,

Brighouse 03/12/2007 22:20:22
An utter disgrace, yet another blunder from Calderdales finest. One has to wonder what will happen now the legal process has failed the people of Granny Hall Lane? Will the people revolt and chop the unwanted mast down one night when no body is looking? Or will they sit back while a mast which they believe to be dangerous to their health is erected on their doorstep? I guess only time will tell.
6

Tilez'r'us,

03/12/2007 23:06:45
You put two letters in the same envelope ?... ooops. By the way is that a new car you are driving ?
7

Bezzer,

04/12/2007 02:49:03
Typical local goverment nonsense.
8

Jane Lee,

Devon 04/12/2007 08:39:08
I feel sorry for the Council because they obviously did send a refusal notice to Vodafone. I think that Vodafone are not being at all fair in this matter - they knew all about the petition and numerous other objections to this mast and had sufficient funds to send one of their own representatives to the planning meeting to learn first hand that this mast was refused. If Vodafone has any respect for the community and Council, it will do the gentlemanly thing and accept the refusal. Let us hope they will choose to respect the majority decision and not bully the local residents. End
9

Vic Esla,

04/12/2007 09:03:01
Business ... bully? Business ... fair? Council ... incompetent? Never!
10

Dennis Cannon,

Burnley 04/12/2007 11:37:41
It is NOT Vodafone that you should blame for this state of affairs. It is this Government that has made the legislation that states that for all prior approval mast applications objections have to be received by the operator within 56 days.They also do not allow health considerations to be made by LPA's and yet have not produced evidence that they are safe in the almost 8 years since the Stewart Report. Further planning rules in England and Wales is different from Scotland and Northern Ireland , where all masts require full planning consent and so there is no 56 day rule there. They also charged all phone operators to achieve 80% coverage of of the UK for their 3G services.
Prev
1
2

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Features

Today's Vote

Sing a Song for Christmas 2008: Choose your favourite
All Saints
Bailiffe Bridge
Barbara's
Beech Hill
Burnley Road Primary
Burnley Road Singing for Fun
Cragg Vale
Elland
Field Lane
Hebden Royd
Lee Mount
Lightcliffe
Ling Bob
Lorraine
Maltings
New Road
Northowram
Parkinson Ln
Sacred Heart
Savile Park
St John's
St Joseph's
St Malachy's Primary
St Malachy's Singing for Fun
St Mary's, Halifax
St Mary's, Mill Bank
Sowerby Village
Stubbings
Triangle

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.