[UK-CONTEST] Planning Doomed to Failure in North Lincolnshire

[Nick Totterdell]

We went to the planning committee at East Lindsey DC yesterday; that is
three of us from Sheffield ARC and four from the Eagle Radio Group at
Mablethorpe.

Firstly, the local woman who had stirred up the huge opposition, spoke
for a couple of minutes, but didn't say anything new or interesting. I
then had three minutes in which I explained that during the "trial
period" with the 18m tower, there had been no further opposition but
lots of additional support - and thanked the Eagle group particularly
for their support.

Next and I think rather unfairly, the parish council chair was given
three minutes to speak against the application. This was the same woman
who I had initially phoned before embarking on the application, and who
had been quite positive with comments about trying to encourage
year-round tourism, etc.

The planner then introduced the application and showed photos of the
site including a close-up of the 18m tower. He recommended rejection of
the application on visual grounds but not on any of the other more
bizarre grounds that were raised in objection. (Birds flying into wires,
horses being upset by view of masts, additional load on the local power,
etc.)

The committee discussion was fairly prolonged. Three councillors spoke
for the application, but the majority wanted to go with the parish
council decision. The vote was 9 against and 3 for the application and
it was rejected.

I have now forwarded the planner's notes to Len Paget (RSGB planning
guru) to see if he thinks an appeal is worth pursuing.

In summary, what I have learned from this so far....

1.	It is much easier to get permission to erect masts within the
curtilage of a dwelling than on agricultural land where a change of use
is required. So don't look for a house with a separate paddock - just a
massive garden.

2.	Having not bought the property, and not intending to live in it
immediately, did not help the application, as I was seen as an outsider
wanting to dump my aerials on a location that I don't live in.

3.	Mobile towers can be used with the curtilage of a dwelling
without planning permission, within reason, but on agricultural land,
permission is required to site them for more than 28 days per calendar
year. When I say within reason, I mean that if you had ten mobile towers
in the garden then this could be deemed to be a change of use of the
property from domestic dwelling to storage of towers - a bit like if you
started a car maintenance business in the garden.

4.	With the on-line (X-Factor Voting Style) portal system, support
from other radio amateurs, even internationally, is acceptable and even
expected given the nature of the hobby. I am very grateful for all the
on-line support that I was given. We should now encourage others to ask
fellow radio amateurs for support when huge opposition is encountered.
There is a worry that too much early support can bring the opposition
out of the woodwork, and to some extent, that happened in this case.

5.	Having had so much support, this application has not muddied the
water for others in East Lindsey who might apply for a single tower,
say. And had I applied for just one tower, then this would probably have
been approved.

6.	Had I lived in the property, I would have adopted a much more
softly-softly approach with the planned aerials but I didn't see the
point in this as the main reason for buying the cottage with an acre
paddock was to be able to put aerials on the paddock. This is probably a
model that is always going to be bound to fail.

7.	Finally, if you ask for initial advice from the local planning
department and parish council, it may ultimately prove to be misleading,
as one local activist with time on their hands, can whip up a huge
amount of opposition very easily.

Many thanks to everyone who supported the application - I am sure your
comments will at least have helped future applicants in East Lindsey -
whether my application goes any further remains to be seen.

Nick G4FAL