Betreff: Appeal success |
Von: Eileen O'Connor |
Datum: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 11:55:52 +0100 |
W-A-R-T
Wednesbury Action for the Removal of Telephone masts.
W-A-R-T
are pleased to advise that with our
assistance, local residents and Councillors have won an
appeal by
Vodaphone for a Street Pole mast being sited in Wednesbury in a
residential
area. This appeal followed two refusals by the Council Planning
Officers
to allow this application following a vigorous campaign from residents
in the
area.
Reasons
given by the inspector state:-
"5) I
consider the main
issue in this appeal to be the effect of the proposal on the character
and
appearance of the area. I have also considered the effects of the
proposal on
the health and amenity of local residents, and whether there are any
available
alternative sites which would provide similar coverage and have less
environmental impact.
6) The
appeal sire lies at the junction of
two busy roads. The buildings on the corner properties are oriented so
as to
face the corner. This gives the junction a sense of spaciousness. The
proposed
equipment would be set in an exposed position, close to the corner. in
front of
an open car park.
The 15
m high tree in
7)
I acknowledge there is
a need for the equipment because of an existing gap in the
telecommunications
coverage. The Appellant considered a number of alternative options and
sites. I
am satisfied that there are sound technical and operational reasons why
these
do not provide a realistic alternative to the appeal proposal. However,
there
is nothing in the information before me to indicate that "swapping
out" of one of the many lamp posts near this junction has been
considered
as an option. I consider that this would be likely to have
significantly less
impact on the street scene than the appeal proposal. The Estates Valuer
from
Sandwell MBC advised the Appellant by letter dated January
2007
(Which should have been 2006), that the Council had resolved not to
allow
mobile phone equipment to be sited on any Council owned land and
premises.
However, it is not clear whether consideration has specifically been
given to
the possibility of a lamp post swap out. I am not, therefore, convinced
that a
sufficiently rigorous search has been conducted to justify what I have
found
would be an insensitive scheme.
8)
I find, on the
evidence before me, that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed
development is the least environmentally damaging option to provide the
required coverage. On this basis, the scheme does not accord with
Sandwell MBC
Unitary Development Plan 2004 Policy TEI, which aims to minimise the
impact on
amenity. It is also at odds with the advice in PPG8. I do not
consider
that the benefits of the additional coverage would be sufficient to
outweigh
the harm I have identified.
9)
I have taken into
account local concerns about the health and amenity of those living and
working
nearby and attending local schools. health concerns can be a material
consideration, but the Appellant has confirmed that the installation
would
comply with the guidelines published by the ICNIRP on limiting
exposure to
radio waves. PPG8 advises that in these circumstances it should not be
necessary to consider further the health aspects and concerns about
them. I
find no reason here to outweigh Government advice about the health
implications
of masts.
10)
I have taken into
account all other matters raised in evidence, but have found nothing to
outweigh the main considerations that lead to my conclusion. For the
reasons
given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I
conclude that
the appeal should be dismissed.
John
Woolcock
Inspector."