[UK-CONTEST] UK-Contest Digest, Vol 82, Issue 42
Don Beattie
g3ozf at btinternet.com
Sat Oct 31 01:27:42 PDT 2009
Jerry,
I thought the test was whether the antenna constituted "development" as
defined in the Act. ? Use is not a planning matter, I thought, unless
covered by a GDO in relation to permitted development.
The test for development relates to size and scale, I had always thought.
So for example, a mast (even if supporting a receiving antenna) is
technically development if it exceeds the exemption limits.
Or perhaps I've missed something ?
73
Don, G3BJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Scarr" <jerryscarr at googlemail.com>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UK-Contest Digest, Vol 82, Issue 42
> Hi Nick
> Asa past chairman of a southern Town Council let me say..
>
> I suggest you now put up a G5RV antenna or a 264 ft long wire into the
> house. When you get a contact from the Parish council or who ever point
> out
> that it is a listening antenna.!!! a recieve antenna does not require
> planning permission. It is up to them to prove if you are
> transmitting.....................
>
>
>
> Nest step would be to go for one tower then a year later a second
> tower..
> Parish councillors have no teeth unlike a district who have the power to
> approve or turn an application. The only way a Parish can really stop an
> application is to stir up the locals. To stop that
> 1) Quietely Hire the village hall and put on a display showing your
> application and have a petition handy for those in Favour.
> 2) advertise in local paper no more than 48 hours before the hall day
> 3) DO NOT CONTACT Parish Councillors let them find out via paper and then
> they don't have time to organise people against you and if you can get
> alot
> of support from the locals on the petition the Parish busy bodies lose
> out.
>
> 4) send petition into DC at least 2 weeks prior to planning meeting.
>
> 5) if the DC suspend standing orders so you can speak elect to do so last
> of all, so you can then counter what's said befofre.
>
> Best of luck
> Jerry G6LBL
>
>
> ----
>
>
>
>
> From: <uk-contest-request at contesting.com>
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 7:00 PM
> Subject: UK-Contest Digest, Vol 82, Issue 42
>
>
>> Send UK-Contest mailing list submissions to
>> uk-contest at contesting.com
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> uk-contest-request at contesting.com
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> uk-contest-owner at contesting.com
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of UK-Contest digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: RX Performance (Ken Eastty)
>> 2. G6PZ CQWW SSB 09 (Paul Beecham)
>> 3. Planning Doomed to Failure in North Lincolnshire (Nick Totterdell)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:32:47 +0000
>> From: Ken Eastty <ken.g3lvp at btinternet.com>
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] RX Performance
>> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
>> Message-ID: <4AEA180F.3090008 at btinternet.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think you missed it Ken, and I didn't mention it because I
>>> assume it is a given.
>>>
>>>
>>> However in case that's not the case for newer contesters, only use your
>>> NB or any other add-on device of that ilk in when absolutely necessary
>>> as the effect on IMD is likely to be dire.
>>>
>>>
>> Very few (if any) high spec HF receivers that I've had the opportunity
>> to play with were fitted with noise blankers,
>> I suppose that they weren't generally expected to work in the noisy RF
>> environments that the average amateur operates in.
>>
>> 73...
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> G3LVP
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:29:42 +0000
>> From: Paul Beecham <paul at attenuate.org>
>> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] G6PZ CQWW SSB 09
>> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
>> Message-ID:
>> <c2c262850910291629r38af1f90keae3b96331b8f912 at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> Scores on the doors from Somerset.
>> Good to see the higher bands open for a change.
>>
>> Call: G6PZ
>> Operator(s): G6PZ 2E0SQL M0CLW M0DXR G4DBL G4MJS
>> Station: G6PZ
>>
>> Class: M/S HP
>> QTH: Somerset
>> Operating Time (hrs): 47.5
>>
>> Summary:
>> Band QSOs Zones Countries
>> ------------------------------
>> 160: 285 11 54
>> 80: 626 18 87
>> 40: 857 35 122
>> 20: 1196 35 128
>> 15: 1239 36 135
>> 10: 171 19 76
>> ------------------------------
>> Total: 4374 154 602 Total Score = 6,730,668
>>
>> 73 Paul
>> G6PZ
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:51:07 -0000
>> From: "Nick Totterdell" <ntotterdell at riverauto.co.uk>
>> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Planning Doomed to Failure in North Lincolnshire
>> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
>> Message-ID:
>> <72226CD42B67FC42883D3F343934ADA5869BED at Riverserver.Riverside.local>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>>
>> End of UK-Contest Digest, Vol 82, Issue 42
>> ******************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
More information about the UK-Contest
mailing list