Latest Application for a Phone Mast

An application seeking planning permission to erect a mobile phone mast on Slaidburn Crescent has been submitted to Sefton Council.

The mast design is known as monopole which is similar to a lamp post, only not as slim, and about 5 metres taller. It is not like the monstrous box-type mast looming over Seacroft Crescent which, many years ago now, we succeeded in getting the Planning Committee to refuse. But that democratic local decision was subsequently overturned by an independent Planning Inspector on appeal, as sadly very frequently happens, and whose decision is final. So the eyesore was built to the distress of residents. Mobile phone companies have the automatic right to appeal against local planning committee decisions.

The monopole mast would be on the pavement on the first right hand bend that you meet after turning into Slaidburn Crescent from Fylde Road. It would be approx. 100 metres from the nearest house on Coyford Drive and visibly shielded by the intervening commercial buildings on the estate.

Mobile phone companies, like other utilities such as gas and electricity, have the automatic right to use pavements for equipment without any payment. All they need is planning permission. Councils cannot stop them using the pavement itself. That’s a national law.

We have demanded, and made sure, that this planning application is properly considered by the full Sefton Council planning committee of councillors because of concerns expressed by some local residents.

The meeting takes place on 10 November at Southport Town Hall at 6.30pm.
To object, write to Sefton Council’s Planning Department, Magdalen House, 30 Trinity Road, Bootle L20
3NJ or use the on-line comments form at www.sefton.gov.uk/planapps. The deadline for receipt of objections is 10am Friday 5 November. A petition from a minimum of 25 residents and signed/supported by a local councillor (which we, of course, would agree to do) gives one of the petitioners the opportunity to speak for 5 minutes at the planning committee meeting.

We should tell you, in all honesty, that the legally valid reasons for turning down such an application are
limited. Councillors on the Planning Committee are required to work within national planning legislation.
For example, health concerns are technically not lawful reasons for rejection, although that does not, of
course, stop you saying what you feel. Issues worth mentioning include things like loss of visual amenity
and over concentration of masts in the area and, of course, anything that you personally think is important.
It would be misleading of us to suggest or forecast the outcome or build up hopes of refusal given the fact
that whatever the planning committee decides, the phone company usually appeals and an independent
Planning Inspector subsequently gives permission. And that decision is final with no further right of appeal.