O2/Vodafone telecommunications mast on GE Autocare site

On This Page

Residents Concerns

Related Documents

 

Newcastle City Council - Planning application number 2011/0564/01/NOT
PROPOSAL:	Notification of Telecommunications: Erection of 15m high joint operator monopole telecommunications tower incorporating 6 x 3G antennas and 300mm dish (grey), Equipment cabinet (Vulcan tupe, RAL 6009 - fir green), meter cabinet (RAL 6009 - fir green), fencing and ancillary development, as amended by plans received on the 5/5/11
LOCATION:	Land Adjacent To Units 2/3, Dicksons Industrial Estate, Hexham Road, Newcastle upon Tyne
RECEIVED:	18 April 2011

Background

Some residents received a letter from Newcastle City Council (Jessica Annan) dated 6th May 2011 informing them of the intention to site a telecommunication mast in the heart of the village.  Residents had 22 days (by 28th May 2011) in which to respond, however, Planning Officers could accept responses after this date and before any desicision is made but these responses would not be included in the publicly available documents.

TRAG sought the opinion of residents living in and on the outskirts of Throckley village and were overwhelmed with the objections and negative comments received in relation to the proposed erection of a telecommunications mast within the heart of our village.   TRAG therefore objected to the proposal to site an O2/Vodaphone telecommunications mast on the GE Autocare site in Throckley on the grounds of loss of visual amenity and potential ill-health problems.  A copy of the objection letter dated 18th May 2011 can be found attached.   The impact of the proposed mast was so great that residents believed this should not be a Newcastle City Council delegated officer decision, as it was at the time,  but should be submitted to the full Planning Committee where residents objections could be heard.

Action Taken

Throckley Residents’ Action Group (TRAG) objected to the proposal to site an O2/Vodaphone telecommunications mast on the GE Autocare site in Throckley .

TRAG sought the opinion of residents living in and on the outskirts of Throckley village.   TRAG was overwhelmed with objections and negative comments received from local residents and objected to this application on the grounds of loss of visual amenity and potential ill-health problems. 

Residents raised the following concerns to TRAG members:

1. Although the site is part of an 'industrial estate', the industry and types of buildings presently located there are low key and constituted very little in the way of negative visual impact however the proposed mast development undoubtedly would and for this reason it should be denied permission. The proposed tower intruded upon the visual aspect of many local properties.

2. The Strategic Housing, Planning and Transportation Division are remiss in failing to increase its standard area of consultation to reflect the importance of the impact of such a development as this one in our village.

3. Many more residents in the village would be affected than were initially informed of this proposal. It was intended to be right in the heart of this densely populated village!   Further consultation must be afforded.  School  governors must be allowed to debate the impact upon the school and children.

4. The Planning Department should have informed a much wider range of addressees than it did and certainly before local residents had to prompt the Department to do so.

5. This is a densely populated area and is unsuitable for development in view of the unresolved controversy regarding the effect of these masts on the health of those living close by.

6. There are a lot of young children in this area, the mast would be in close proximity to two schools , and we ffeel this mast could be a problem in years to come. We object to this application very strongly on health grounds.

7. I am not happy at all as it will, in my opinion, create a blot on the landscape which will in turn affect any resale value of mine and other surrounding properties.

8. These types of mast should be erected on true commercial sites, not residential areas, which is basically what the proposed site is albeit the companies are suggesting otherwise.

9. We're not convinced on the safety aspects. We fought it before, so we find it quite staggering that they're coming back and having another bite of the cherry.

The general feeling of our residents was that the proposed location is situated too close to many residential properties and would have had a serious adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area. In addition the site was right next to a busy pedestrian pathway that is well used by pupils of the nearby local schools and by considerable numbers of residents to access local facilities.

The proposal to place the mast in such a busy residential and public area was completely wrong and would have significantly harmed the look and feel of our village. Residents in Throckley should not be forced to live close to or regularly walk past this mast, both for amenity reasons and because they will have serious concerns about the effects close proximity will have on them and their children.

The impact of the proposed mast is so great that residents believe this should not be a Newcastle City Council delegated officer decision but should be submitted to the full Planning Committee where residents objections can be heard.

Campaign Outcome

The following is taken from a letter from Newcastle City Council to O2/Vodafone,  c/o WFS Telecom Ltd, dated 3 June 2011:-

PROPOSAL:	Notification of Telecommunications: Erection of 15m high joint operator monopole telecommunications tower incorporating 6 x 3G antennas and 300mm dish (grey), Equipment cabinet (Vulcan tupe, RAL 6009 - fir green), meter cabinet (RAL 6009 - fir green), fencing and ancillary development, as amended by plans received on the 5/5/11
LOCATION:	Land Adjacent To Units 2/3, Dicksons Industrial Estate, Hexham Road, Newcastle upon Tyne
RECEIVED:	18 April 2011
Dear Sir/Madam Further to recent discussion/correspondence in relation to the above, I confirm that the submission has been treated as withdrawn and that no further action will be taken upon it. If at any future date you wish to proceed with the proposals, it will be necessary to prepare and submit an entirely new application. Any fee you may have submitted with the application cannot under the Fees Regulations be refunded. However, if you wish to resubmit the same proposal on the same site you will be entitled to make a new application without charge providing it is submitted within one year of the date on which the original application was received (see above). Yours faithfully Development Management Validation Team

This was great news for all residents.   Well done everyone!!