[UK-CONTEST] MOBILE TOWER

[Roger]

Nick

Without trying to confuse things, a local amateur tried the mobile tower 
system to beat the planning laws and he fell foul of the regulations. He 
had a 20mtr beam on top of a mobile tower, occasionally swapping the 
antenna for vhf beams, depending if there was a contest on. The local 
planning department became involved and he was asked to take them down, 
as the tower was in one place longer that 28 days, he stores two towers 
on his property and is involved in discussions about storing these 
towers in a residential area, he has not told me what the latest is 
about storing towers, if a antenna is higher that 2mtrs (he lives in a 
bungalow) he receives a letter from the planning department to take it 
down.
So the moral of the story is you will be lucky if you can store mobile 
towers in a residential area, trying to circumvent the planning rules by 
using mobile towers, you then trip the 28 day rule and finally no 
structure larger than 2mtrs to top of antenna from the ground.

Hope it throws some light on the subject and I have not confused anybody.

Roger G4OCO
Nick Totterdell wrote:
> Erik
>
> This is an interesting question and the answer is not clear. What is clear
> however is that to "get away with it" using a mobile tower, it has to be
> erected within the domestic curtilage of the property in question (in the
> garden). In an adjacent paddock, say, you can erect whatever you like, as
> long as the equipment is only there for 28 days per calendar year. I put the
> "tower in the garden" question to the planning officer in Lincolnshire as
> worded below and his answer follows.
>
> Is planning consent required for the storage and/or erection of one or more
> mobile towers within the residential curtilage of the cottage?
>
> Response: Freestanding aerials within domestic curtilages of dwellings may
> be covered by the uses incidental to the enjoyment provision such as cases
> where aerials are mounted on trailers and brought into a garden when needed.
> It can be the case that mobility and lack of attachment to the ground meant
> that operations were not involved and therefore not permitted.  However, in
> considering the matter of whether the use is incidental to the enjoyment of
> the dwelling house it could be argued that a material change of use has
> occurred if the mast or masts were of a type supplied for commercial and
> professional use and would present the appearance of specialised technical
> equipment. It would be a primary use of land in its own right. In addition
> if there are 4 mobile structures stored on the site it could be argued that
> this is beyond what can be considered as incidental and that a mixed use is
> occurring comprising of a dwelling and storage of radio aerials.
>
> If you can understand this then you are doing well! I think the bit about
> "operations" means that connecting up an aerial could be argued to give the
> tower of degree of permanence and therefore not be permitted!
>
> 73 Nick G4FAL
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>