Please help to raise objections against a proposed phone mast installation on Stanhope Gardesns. Either use the letter below, or personalize it as you wish, and ensure that you respond to the appeal by 3rd September at the latest. You can either respond electronically or by letter.
By e-mail:
• Go to www.planningportal.gov.uk
• click on “search for an appeal online” (bottom right hand side of webpage)
• on the next page, click on "search for a case" and then enter the last 7 digits of the appeal reference in "case reference" to find it– 2221148
• Click on the case reference number which will then take you through to the form
By letter:
• You must provide your name and address
• You must provide the Planning Inspectorate appeal reference number (APP/Y5420/A/14/2221148)
• You must provide the address of the appeal site (Footpath of Stanhope Gardens near Junction of Warwick Gardnes N4 1JE)
• Say either “I am against the appeal proposals” and explain why; or “I support the appeal proposals” (which we don’t!) and request to be notified of the result
• Write legibly in black ink, or type, your letter, and send three copies to the following address
The Planning Inspectorate
3/10b Kite Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6P
Dear
Madam/Sir,
Town and Country Planning
Act 1990
Location:
Footpath of Stanhope Gardens Near Junction of
Warwick Gardens N4 1JE
Proposal:
Prior notification for installation of a 15
metre high monopole along with 4 no. radio equipment cabinets and 1 no.
electrical metre cabinet
Appeal
by: Vodafone Limited
Appeal
Reference: APP/Y5420/A/14/2221148
I
am against the appeal proposals. I agree with the reason for refusal that due
to the size and scale of the equipment it would have an adverse effect on local
residents and the area.
I
oppose the proposals for the following main reasons:
·
Insufficient evidence that alternatives have been adequately pursued
·
The mast and five cabinets would result in excessive street clutter and
obstruction in an unsuitable location.
·
Dominant and out of character with the character of the street and the
height would be unduly prominent and intrusive in views along Stanhope Gardens
·
Would be overbearing and unduly dominant from the windows and
garden/balconies of neighbouring properties
I
support the significant number of original objection responses to the local
authority which I hope you will also take into account. These include detailed
objections which set out how the proposals are contrary to local plan policies,
the NPPF and operators code of conduct and guidance.
There is insufficient
evidence that alternatives have been considered:
·
Relocation at the land at St Annes Hospital which is over 10 hectares in
area and could accommodate such equipment in a significantly less obtrusive
manner.
·
Evidence that other owners have been actively engaged in a dialogue to
relocate the equipment. Further evidence of correspondence with
owners/occupiers and any follow up actions is required.
·
The railway lands are ignored due to lack of power supply. It does not
appear unfeasible to run connections to existing utilities infrastructure
·
The railway lands are ignored due to lack of access. Network Rail carries
out regular works and have previously created a temporary access from Stanhope
Gardens and have only just carried out major works to the railway involving
diggers and laying new drainage infrastructure where access was obtained via
the St Anne’s site.
·
That other options were discounted due to proximity to low rise residential
properties and inadequate footway widths; exactly the same circumstances in
this proposal.
·
For example the appellants say (5.4): “It was recognised from
the outset that the majority of roads in the area are purely residential in
character, presenting no appropriate stretches of adopted highway controlled
land to site a streetworks style installation. Indeed in trying to identify
possible adopted highway land opportunities to site a ground based
installation, it became apparent to the appellant, that the majority of the target area was unsuitable given its residential
layout and built character.” Stanhope Gardens is part of that
residential character that is rightly discounted.
Prejudice safe and
accessible pedestrian movement:
Vodaphone’s
agents say that the location is a “wide section of pavement”.
·
The pavement is too narrow and the equipment would cause obstruction.
The appellant and highways authority pay little attention to the width of the
pavement and the impact of the proposal. It is only about 2.3m wide. One of the
five cabinets is 800mm deep and will reduce pavement width to only about 1.5m including the kerb. A light column at
the front edge of pavement next to the installation effectively reduces the
pavement width to a gap of approximately 0.8m when walking along the street.
·
The extent of pavement covered by the mast and cabinets is excessive in
this location and this amount of equipment will add to clutter and cause obstruction
to accessible pedestrian movement.
·
The Council are currently dealing with planning applications at St Anne’s
Hospital for up to 463 residential units (Ref: HGY/2014/1691) and are promoting
redevelopment through its Site Allocations plan. A new pedestrian access is
being promoted through the car park of the neighbouring block of flats directly
onto this section of Stanhope Gardens. This proposal will seriously impact on
the pedestrian links from this very significant development to public transport
and shops.
·
The appellants recognise constraints as they say that “due to the
proposal positioning upon a section of footpath there is no option to introduce
soft landscaping in this instance”
Visual impact
·
The mast would be clearly visible and prominent in the middle of views
along Stanhope Gardens far in excess of the height of other features .The 15m
mast will dominate the streetscene and views even more in the seasons when
trees are not in leaf. Network rail are also due to cut back vegetation in the
near future.
·
At 15m high the mast will be unduly overbearing when viewed from
neighbouring properties including windows and balconies
·
The light columns (shown at 6m in the submitted drawings) are
significantly lower than a 15m mast in this specific location, not the “notable
vertical features” as claimed.
Other
matters:
I
would ask you to address the genuine perceptions and fears that such equipment
could pose a health risk particularly in such close proximity to housing
including my home..
Also,
the Planning Inspectorate’s guidance states that after you accepted the appeal
as valid, the LPA should notify any person who was notified or consulted about
the application and any other person who made representations about the
application that the appeal has been made.
You
should be aware that it appears all original consultees and objectors do not
appear to have been notified of the submission of this appeal and that despite the
LPA extending the deadline to make comments we would like to draw to your
attention this issue to consider whether the views of interested parties will have
been prejudiced. It has taken the work of the residents association to identify
a failing in this respect and put up site notices about the appeal.
This
is particularly important as some people may have had limited notification and
time to respond in the summer holiday period.
Taking into account the
above and other objections I would respectfully ask the inspector to find these
proposals unacceptable and dismiss this appeal.
I
would like to be notified of the result.
Regards
Name
Address
Email
.jpg)