[UK-CONTEST] UK-Contest Digest, Vol 102, Issue 39
Garo Private
garo at molozian.co.uk
Sun Jun 26 16:23:11 PDT 2011
Planning issues
Nick
Don't give up. Put up some antennas with say rope or plastic whatever and see if you get emc complaints. Then get them investigated to prove you had no metallic antennas and were therefore not transmitting !! Then use this evidence on appeal
Garo
G0PZA
Garo Molozian
(Sent from my iPhone)
On 26 Jun 2011, at 20:00, uk-contest-request at contesting.com wrote:
> 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. Planning Traumas in Lincolnshire - one step forwards, two
> steps backwards (Nick Totterdell)
> 2. Re: Planning Traumas in Lincolnshire - one step forwards, two
> steps backwards (David Honey)
> 3. Re: Planning Traumas in Lincolnshire - one step forwards, two
> steps backwards (Rob Harrison)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:09:44 +0000
> From: Nick Totterdell <ntotterdell at riverauto.co.uk>
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Planning Traumas in Lincolnshire - one step
> forwards, two steps backwards
> To: "uk-contest at contesting.com" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID:
> <7B6D7C866639D2408DEA0442C2163F550E75D7 at RIVERSERVER2011.Riverside.local>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Firstly - many thanks to everyone who has posted a message of support. There is absolutely no doubt that these comments have helped; they do not carry the weight of a local opinion but they are still significant. The majority of the opposition comments are also from outside the village.
>
> The planners eventually recommended the application for approval but unfortunately this is not the end of the story....
>
> At the planning meeting on Thursday, one neighbour spoke against the application for three minutes - she did not mention that any case of interference (breakthrough) had ever occurred.
> I spoke for the application for three minutes.
> The ward councillor spoke against the application for three minutes (I did have a quick word with her - perhaps stupidly - and asked her how she could justify speaking against the application when the parish council that she is chair of had previously written a letter to the secretary of state accusing me of collusion with an appeal inspector which was completely unfounded - I showed her a copy of the letter and she denied that she had contributed to it - I then consulted the legal fellow who advises the committee and he said that he saw my point but this couldn't prevent her from speaking). Again, she made no mention of interference.
>
> The committee discussed the application and were about to approve it when one of the councillors picked up on one sentence from only one of the 113 letters of opposition which mentioned that there had been some strange voices on their telephone on one occasion (SSB Field Day). This neighbour had never mentioned this to me or given me any opportunity to address it and this incident had been fully discussed with the planners and mentioned in their recommendation for approval. How can you deal with a case of breakthrough when you are completely unaware of it and also the neighbour in question would rather spit at you than speak to you?
>
> As a result of this one single isolated case of breakthrough the council then voted to allow me to continue for a trial period of one year. So I am now no further forward.
>
> Of course this is completely unsatisfactory as any neighbour who objects can now claim that there is interference every time that I put an aerial up. I am not going to the trouble of putting up aerials and not transmitting just to call their bluff. It also gives these neighbours no incentive to actually address any breakthrough problems.
>
> So now I will wait for the detailed consent letter from the council and then will submit an appeal against the trial period on the basis that I have already operated radio from the location for an entire year and had there been a significant problem with interference this would have been identified by the opposition neighbours, who went to every single property in the village to solicit support for their campaign. So another trial period is completely unnecessary.
>
> Thanks again for your support.
>
> I will let you know how things develop!
>
> 73 Nick G4FAL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:25:10 +0100
> From: David Honey <david at honeyfamily.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Planning Traumas in Lincolnshire - one step
> forwards, two steps backwards
> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Message-ID: <4E071716.6000307 at honeyfamily.org.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 2011-06-26 12:09, Nick Totterdell wrote
>> As a result of this one single isolated case of breakthrough the council then voted to allow me to continue for a trial period of one year. So I am now no further forward.
>>
>
> My sympathies Nick. As I'm sure you already know, EMC issues are not
> relevant to planning. I'm surprised the planners even brought the
> subject up since it is outside of their remit. I think you have a strong
> case on that point alone in your appeal. Such an appeal will impose a
> cost to the council. If you win, the only saving grace is that perhaps
> they will think more clearly about spurious reasons for denial or silly
> conditions for future applications.
>
> When I applied for planning permission for my tower and antennas, many
> of my neighbours objected. One even commented that it might be visible
> from a public footpath 1/4 mile away. However, another Amateur in a
> nearby village had already got consent on appeal even though this was
> within a conservation area. I let my planning officer know about this
> and that I would appeal if permission was denied. That planning
> precedent undountedly helped my application. In the end, planning was
> granted under delegated powers and it wasn't too contraversial. All of
> neighbours I have spoken to since their objections then have remarked
> that they can't really see it and we have remained on friendly terms.
>
> Keep up the fight and good luck with your appeal.
> Regards
> David M0DHO
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 13:25:34 +0100
> From: "Rob Harrison" <robharrison at g8hgn.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Planning Traumas in Lincolnshire - one step
> forwards, two steps backwards
> To: "Nick Totterdell" <ntotterdell at riverauto.co.uk>,
> <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <29631FF5DD354C3E9C1B3649FE35342A at G8HGN1442PC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> My daughter is a planning officer and she agrees interference is not a
> planning issue. More to the point how did they attribute the interference to
> you, it could have been any nearby transmission, taxi, police, fire, etc.
>
> Unfortunately the planning committees are not soley made up of planning
> officers, and other members could have other issues at stake. My daughter
> more be rich if see had a ?5 for every application that was approved by the
> planners only to be denied by the committee, then overturned on appeal
> costing the council more money. Local government at it's finest.
>
> Bob G8HGN
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick Totterdell" <ntotterdell at riverauto.co.uk>
> To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 12:09 PM
> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Planning Traumas in Lincolnshire - one step forwards,
> two steps backwards
>
>
>>
>> Firstly - many thanks to everyone who has posted a message of support.
>> There is absolutely no doubt that these comments have helped; they do not
>> carry the weight of a local opinion but they are still significant. The
>> majority of the opposition comments are also from outside the village.
>>
>> The planners eventually recommended the application for approval but
>> unfortunately this is not the end of the story....
>>
>> At the planning meeting on Thursday, one neighbour spoke against the
>> application for three minutes - she did not mention that any case of
>> interference (breakthrough) had ever occurred.
>> I spoke for the application for three minutes.
>> The ward councillor spoke against the application for three minutes (I did
>> have a quick word with her - perhaps stupidly - and asked her how she
>> could justify speaking against the application when the parish council
>> that she is chair of had previously written a letter to the secretary of
>> state accusing me of collusion with an appeal inspector which was
>> completely unfounded - I showed her a copy of the letter and she denied
>> that she had contributed to it - I then consulted the legal fellow who
>> advises the committee and he said that he saw my point but this couldn't
>> prevent her from speaking). Again, she made no mention of interference.
>>
>> The committee discussed the application and were about to approve it when
>> one of the councillors picked up on one sentence from only one of the 113
>> letters of opposition which mentioned that there had been some strange
>> voices on their telephone on one occasion (SSB Field Day). This neighbour
>> had never mentioned this to me or given me any opportunity to address it
>> and this incident had been fully discussed with the planners and mentioned
>> in their recommendation for approval. How can you deal with a case of
>> breakthrough when you are completely unaware of it and also the neighbour
>> in question would rather spit at you than speak to you?
>>
>> As a result of this one single isolated case of breakthrough the council
>> then voted to allow me to continue for a trial period of one year. So I am
>> now no further forward.
>>
>> Of course this is completely unsatisfactory as any neighbour who objects
>> can now claim that there is interference every time that I put an aerial
>> up. I am not going to the trouble of putting up aerials and not
>> transmitting just to call their bluff. It also gives these neighbours no
>> incentive to actually address any breakthrough problems.
>>
>> So now I will wait for the detailed consent letter from the council and
>> then will submit an appeal against the trial period on the basis that I
>> have already operated radio from the location for an entire year and had
>> there been a significant problem with interference this would have been
>> identified by the opposition neighbours, who went to every single property
>> in the village to solicit support for their campaign. So another trial
>> period is completely unnecessary.
>>
>> Thanks again for your support.
>>
>> I will let you know how things develop!
>>
>> 73 Nick G4FAL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>
> End of UK-Contest Digest, Vol 102, Issue 39
> *******************************************
More information about the UK-Contest
mailing list