RIDDLESDOWN RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION

 

(Click for H O M E  P A G E)

PLANNING

O2 MOBILE TELEPHONE MAST, LOWER BARN ROAD, ADJACENT TO SHOPS AND RAILWAY BRIDGE

 Update from the Chairman's Report, Riddlesdown Recorder October 2005

You will be aware that in my last report, I discussed the issue of the 3G mast now erected in Lower Barn Road without planning permission. As I indicated at the time, it was the Association’s intention to register a formal complaint against Croydon’s Planning Department. The basis for the complaint was that Croydon had failed in its obligation to conform with planning regulations and had also failed in its duty to safeguard the interests of Croydon residents.

   On count one, the council admitted their error of being one day late in notifying O2 of their decision to refuse planning permission. Croydon’s Planning  Department have now revised their planning procedures to ensure this will not happen again.

   On count two, the issues are less clear. Croydon argues that they listened to the concerns of  residents and refused planning permission and, as such, were acting in the best interests of local residents.

   This argument becomes less persuasive when the decision taken by Croydon to refuse planning permission was not communicated to O2 within the time limit.  However, while Croydon readily admits to an error in its procedure, O2 continues to believe that they acted in a correct and a responsible manner. The Association is still of the view that O2 acted in a manner contrary to its own Code of Practice and, as such, we have now registered a formal complaint against O2 with Ofcom.    

   The situation is now further complicated by yet another application from O2 to erect a mast on Riddlesdown station close to the ticket office. The reason for this one, so we are informed, is to provide network coverage in the tunnel, exactly the same reason given for the newly erected mast in Lower Barn only a few yards away!! We will keep you posted on developments.

   Still on the mobile telephone front, the Association has been dealing with two new applications for masts in Mitchley Avenue.

   Our reply to the operators was clear: while we fully support improvements to mobile telephone coverage, we want operators to act in a responsible manner and, where possible,  share masts, making full use of the three now in the area.

Update from the Phil Thomas' Report, Riddlesdown Recorder October 2005

No further communication has been received from O2 on the 3G mast erected by default in Lower Barn Road, since local residents sent in letters of objection late last year. We believe, at the time of writing, that the mast is not operational.  However, to add insult to injury, O2 wrote to residents in the vicinity of the Station in May, advising that they are contemplating erecting a 2G mast adjacent to the station and railway line. A full transcript of O2’s letter is on the message board of the website. This of course is exactly what local residents said would happen following the erection of the 3G mast, as 2G coverage around the station is very poor. To have two O2 masts within metres of each other is unbelievable. Currently, no planning application has been submitted by O2 for this 2G mast. We are still in contact with O2 and the Council on both matters.

 

Update from the Chairman's Report, Riddlesdown Recorder April 2005
On the mast front, it is now clear that, despite Croydon rejecting planning permission, 02 were legally entitled to erect the mast as Croydon had not correctly notified 02 of its decision. The Association challenged  02’s action on the grounds that it had acted in a manner contrary to its own Code of Practice. 

   The following is from 02’s Corporate Responsibility Report 2004 on mast siting: “Some people have expressed their concerns about where we locate our communication masts for our networks. We take these concerns seriously. We aim to develop our infrastructure responsibly and make efforts to inform people in advance of our plans. We aim to listen, consult and respond.”

   The response from 02’s Chief Executive to our letter was simple: Croydon failed to respond to their application within the 56-day rule and therefore they were free to proceed with the development. He added: "to move to an alternative location is an expensive exercise and is not a viable option”  So much for “we aim to listen, consult and respond”.

   We are advised that a legal challenge against 02 is unlikely to succeed; therefore the only sensible option open to the Association is to proceed with a formal complaint against Croydon and, depending on the outcome, register a complaint with OFCOM.  We will keep you posted on the website.  The Association is currently responding to two other expressions of interest by mobile operators for masts. Our view is clear: we will continue to object to mast applications close to people’s homes and will campaign where practicable for mast sharing.   

Update from the Phil Thomas' Report, Riddlesdown Recorder April 2005

Following the Council’s mismanagement of its planning process, the RRA in late October did a leaflet drop to all houses within a 150m radius of the 3G mast near the railway bridge in Lower Barn Road. All residents within this area were urged to write to O2 and object. We are aware that many residents, local councillors and our MP did, and also objections were made from many residents beyond this radius. At the time of writing this report, no response has been received from O2. Please see the Chairman’s report for the RRA’s response. Any information we receive will be updated on our website. If residents who objected receive any notification from O2 would you please, if possible, post any comments on the website Message Board ?

SUNDRY CORRESPONDENCE RE THE MAST

O2 have commenced (and now completed as at 7.10.04) work on this mast (for which planning permission was previously refused) without approval and the Association have been in contact with both the Council's Planning Enforcement Officer and O2 and the works have temporarily ceased.               7.7.04

9.8.04 - Phil Thomas, our Planning Committee Member, adds further details and explanation:

02 have recently erected a new 3G mast near the railway bridge. The 3G masts provide higher data speeds for mobile phones, enabling customers of the "3" network to use video messaging, and download media clips faster than normal as well as providing standard voice calls - a service which currently has to be "piggybacked" off another network in low-coverage areas. The signals for 3G phones are different to standard mobile phones. They are set at a higher frequency — about 2,400 megahertz (MHz) — as opposed to 900MHz and 1,800MHz used for most standard mobile phones. However, at the moment they are only available to a limited number of subscribers.

The emissions for 3G phones — which receive and send moving pictures as well as voice calls — are different to standard mobile phones. They are set at a higher frequency — about 2,400 megahertz (MHz) — as opposed to 900MHz and 1,800MHz used for most standard mobile phones. It is not fully clear yet what the health implications of these masts are.

Phone companies are allowed to erect masts up to 15m high without planning permission although the must first notify the local authority of its intention. 02 applied for planning permission on 3 December 03. The Council rejected this application on 28 January 04. The Council however have 56 days to notify 02 of this rejection. It is currently being argued between 02 and the Council that this refusal was received by 02, 24 hours too late and 02 have proceeded on the basis that the application was out of time.

The Association have made strong representations to the Council, councillors and 02. However if any other resident wishes to voice their own concerns then please write to:-

Mr Rory Macleod
Acting Head of Planning Control
London Borough of Coydon
Taberner House
Park Lane
Croydon
CR9 1JT

 __________________________________________


Phil Thomas emailed Mr MacLeod on 5 August 2004 as follows:

 

Dear Mr McLeod
 
I refer to the erection of the above mast by 02.
 
Firstly I am the planning committee member for the Riddlesdown Residents Association and have a direct interest in this mast as my property is within 150 yards of this mast. As you will no doubt be aware O2's contractors erected their mast yesterday 4 August. I also understand your Department has received many telephone calls about this subject.
 
I am aware that 02 submitted an application which was registered on 3 December 03 and the Residents Association objected to this application. I am also aware the Council gave a decision for prior approval to be refused of this application on 28 January 04. Surely the Council is aware that the phone companies can commence works if they have not been notified 56 days after the application is registered. Why therefore did the Council give the decision exactly 56 days after the application was registered and not before? I understand O2 are claiming they received the notification 24 hours after the deadline and have proceeded on this basis.
 
You were advised by the Residents Association circa 5 July that O2 had commenced works to erect the mast. Why have the Council not enforced 02 to stop works or even served a court injunction on them? Is it because you know you have made an error?
 
As you will appreciate there are many annoyed residents in this area, who are uncertain of the health affects of these new 3G masts and the Council's apparent mismanagement of this application beggars belief. I am sure it is something the Local Government Ombudsman may be interested in, if a satisfactory conclusion is not reached. I know that Brian Longman, the Chairman of the Residents Association has been in contact with you and this e-mail is reinforcing our disgust of the whole situation.
 
I look forward to your response.
 
Phil Thomas MRICS
Committee Member (Planning)
Riddlesdown Residents Association

__________________________________________

Mr MacLeod replied to Phil Thomas and to various emails received from residents as follows on
13 August 2004

Dear Mr Thomas,

I refer to your email of 5 August regarding the erection of a mast by O2 in Lower Barn Road.

A number of residents have contacted my officers and I have also spoken with Brain Longman of your residents association on the matter. I am aware of the strength of feeling of local residents on this issue.

O2 had not contacted this Council regarding their intentions but having spoken with their agents it my understanding that they believe the Council was out of time when taking its decision to refuse the application. Council officers believed they were within the 56 day period when the decision was taken having regard to the dates on the computer records. However on examination of recorded delivery dates on when the application was delivered to the Council it appears O2 may be correct.

Enforcement action and other options are being considered in conjunction with the Council's legal section. I have also written to O2 informing of this  and seeking removal of the mast.

The Planning Control section processes large number of such prior approval applications for various telecommunications equipment each year. Officers are well aware of the time limitations for determining these applications and the monitoring of applications has ensured that decisions have been taken within time. Frequently decisions have been taken towards the end of the time period to allow for neighbour consultation, site inspections and discussion with agents on matters arising, but the end date has always been kept in mind. Nonetheless I shall be reviewing internal procedures to preclude any doubt over the dates for determining prior approval applications.

Rory MacLeod

__________________________________________

Phil Thomas emailed Mr Macleod 0n 30 August 2004

Dear Mr MacLeod

Re: O2 MAST - LOWER BARN RD, PURLEY

 Thank you for your e-mail of 13 August.
 
Presumably you are aware that O2 have now fixed notices to the mast requesting all objections under Paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 are sent within 3 months of 25 August to
 
Acquisition Development Group
Stafford Taylor Building
1 Leeds City Office Park
Meadow Lane
Leeds LS11 5BD
 
Ref NC/DAB/031 - Cell No 15447
 
For some reason the notice is headed Ragged Grove which is nearly a mile from this site, which I'm not clear why this is.
 
Presumably as the Council are the highway authority on which this mast is situated that you/ the Council will be objecting to this.
 
Could I please clarify some points. You say that O2 sent you a recorded delivery letter with the application. Was this recorded delivery dated 2 December 03 as you registered it on the 3rd Dec? Also what date was the notification sent back to O2 and presumably this was recorded delivery!
 
Also do the Council receive an income/rent for the mast being on the highway.
 
I look forward to your response
 
Phil Thomas

__________________________________________

 

Phil Thomas again emailed Mr Macleod on 25 September 2004

To: Rory Macleod

Dear Mr McLeod

 
I refer to my e-mail to you of 30 August, which  I do not appear to have had a response to. I understand Brian Longman was also trying to contact you for an update, prior to a recent RRA Committee meeting attended by Councillor Eric Shaw.
 
It appears that despite the objection notices fixed by O2, they are continuing to proceed with this installation and the unit now seems to be powered up, although I'm not sure if it is fully operational as yet.
 
There are a few points, which I'm sure the Council are aware of  but perhaps you would confirm with your Highway colleagues and let me know.
 
bulletThe mast has been installed on the highway at a point where the pavement is 2070 mm wide plus there is a 2000 mm wide grass verge. By installing the mast, 02 have reduced the width of the pavement by 770 mm from the fence line to only 1300 mm wide.  I understand that many local authorities state that street furniture should not be positioned in a zone exceeding 275 mm from the back of the footway and that the recommended minimum width to the pavement, free of obstructions is 1500 mm but 1800 mm is ideal.
 
bulletSurely under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), which no doubt you are aware, the full Act comes into effect on 1 October, by installing the mast on the pavement and thereby reducing the width to 1300mm, O2 are in breach of this Act by creating a physical feature.
 
bulletAs this is a new piece of street furniture, should this mast therefore not be situated on the grass verge to keep it in line with the position of other street lighting/furniture? Also should the mast not be colour toned with alternative colouring so it is seen by those with partial sight? Green is not a good colour for visually impaired people. I see no reason therefore why Highway enforcement cannot be taken in breach of these requirements? If O2 then take action to remedy these by colour contrast and/or repositioning the mast, will they then not be in breach of the deposited plans and have to submit a new prior approval application?
 
bulletO2 may argue that this is section of pavement is a cul-de-sac. However is it only a few metres from shops used by the local community and is never the less on the public highway. There could also be the possibility the land behind the fence could be developed for residential use in the future.
 
bulletThe Council's own Designing for Accessibility Planning Guidance No 10, states that "routes should be planned for pedestrians" and "avoid placing street furniture where it causes problems for people with sight impairments or obstructs the passage of wheelchairs" and "consider the use of tonal contrast" ....."logical grouping of street furniture".  It seems to me that O2 have taken a blatant disregard for the DDA in both positioning of the mast and colour contrast and the Council as the Local Highway Authority should be taking action to enforce this Act.
 
I  look forward to receiving your comments to the above and also the points in my e-mail of 30 August.
 
Phil Thomas MRICS
Committee Member (Planning)
Riddlesdown Residents' Association

________________________________________________

BELOW IS A SUMMARY OF THE LATEST POSITION FROM PHIL THOMAS, OUR PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBER

RIDDLESDOWN RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
O2 MAST IN LOWER BARN ROAD

EXTRACT OF LEAFLET DELIVERED TO ALL HOUSES WITHIN 150m RADIUS OF MAST 

As you maybe aware, O2 have recently erected a 15m high mast in Lower Barn Road near the railway bridge. This mast is for the new generation of 3G phones and will not work for conventional 2G phones. O2 say this mast is principally for the benefit of rail travellers through the tunnel with laptop computers and video phones, although it will be of use to local residents who have an O2, 3G phone. 

The Council rejected O2’s planning application in January 04 but unfortunately the Council were outside the statutory 56 day period in responding to this telecommunication application. O2 have therefore erected this mast by default and the Council’s planning powers are now defunct because of their oversight. 

Because of pressure from the Residents Association, local residents, Councillors and our MP, on 25 August last, O2 erected a notice on the mast inviting objections to the mast and equipment from the landowner and those living near to the mast. As your property is within 150 metres of this mast, it is suggested by the Residents Association, that all residents who feel aggrieved about it, should write to O2 expressing your objections. 

Because these 3G masts are new, the full effects of any health concerns are not yet fully understood. However if you have children under 16 within your house and you live close to the mast, then this has a greater impact with the phone companies and you should say this within your letter.  There is strong evidence that house prices are affected and can be devalued with a phone mast near our properties. This does depend to a certain extent how close you live to the mast. However in 2003, seven householders in Swindon won sums of between £10,000 and £20,000 each from their local council after it mistakenly allowed a mast to be erected in the middle of their residential street, causing their properties to crash in value.  

A sample letter that can be used for you to fill in your name and address and send it as is, or to amend it, as you want, can be found by clicking here - it is also on the Message Board. Letters of objection must be with O2 before 25 November 04. It is suggested the letter to O2 should be sent by Recorded Delivery. It is also suggested that a copy also be sent to Rory MacLeod, Acting Assistant Director, Croydon Council, Planning Department, Taberner House, Park Lane, Croydon CR9 1JT. 

Please arrange to send a letter of objection to O2 before 25 November and get all members of your household over 18 to sign it. All Ward councillors for Sanderstead and Purley are involved, together with Richard Ottaway our MP. Feedback via the noticeboard on the site is welcome. The RRA Committee are still considering the options available and legal action has not been ruled out.

______________________________________

Phil Thomas wrote again on 10 November to Mr MacLeod

Dear Mr MacLeod
I refer to my e-mails of 30 August and 25 September which I do not appear to have had the courtesy of a response, to either.

I note 25 November is looming fast with a response required to O2 and I know many residents within the RRA have already made their own representations to them as they are disgusted with O2's attitude and to a certain extent the Council's planning position on the matter, or lack of it.  

Can you please advise me what action, if any the Council will be taking against O2 and whether you will be enforcing any of the DDA as listed below.  

I look forward to your early response. 

Regards 

Phil Thomas MRICS

This is an extract of a letter dated 26 November received in reply from Rory Macleod at Croydon Council. The Association are still considering the course of action open to us but we are now waiting to see the response from O2 to all the local residents and the RRA's letters of objection.


Dear Mr Thomas

Installation of 02 Telecommunications Mast and Ancillary Equipment at
Lower Barn Road, Purley

I refer to your recent e-mails on this subject and firstly would apologise for the delay in replying whilst the matters you have raised have been discussed with Highway colleagues and with the Solicitor to the Council.

With respect to the planning application for prior approval for the siting and appearance of the mast, Council Officers firmly believed that they were within the 56 day period when the decision was taken to refuse the application.  Best opinion is that the Council was outside the 56 day period.  The discrepancy is to do with the start date.  O2 did not challenge the Council’s start date set in the acknowledgement letter to the application but have now taken advantage of this discrepancy.  The Department’s procedures have been reviewed with a view to precluding this situation happening again.

It is open to the Council to take enforcement action against the structure. However, legal advice is that such action is unlikely to be successful and would probably result in the Council having an award of costs made against it.  As such this Council will not be pursuing enforcement action.  However the Council has made and will maintain representations to 02 about the manner in which they have acted in this case.......

I have spoken with Brian Longman, the Chair of the Riddlesdown Residents Association on this matter and am copying him and other parties into this letter which is being sent by post and email.

Yours sincerely

Rory Macleod
Head of Planning Control

(Click for H O M E  P A G E)