Latest Emails to Stuart Bodsworth Councillor Cheadle Hulme South
Michael,
I do not have a problem in you posting my comments on your blog. It might be useful for readers if you included your message as context for my comments in reply?
All the best.
Stuart Bodsworth
Councillor Cheadle Hulme South
Cllr, Yes, I was present at the meeting at Bramhall for a 'dry run' for the possibility of the Church Inn telephone mast coming back as planning permission item.... It was especially very useful to hear your comment on "the public perception, the fear, of possible health implications and the consequent impact on quality of life"... it certainly got Karen Clark asking for precise reasons of refusal on the night in light of possible further appeal...
I'm working with Lenny Grice albeit that we are 'on hold' at the moment... further I was very pleased with the councils statement re conservation area as another reason and especially the statement that the committee/chair will always refuse masts on conservation land...
I look forward to our discussions on further appeal re Church Inn mast...
I will also add all your comments in full to the blog, http://say-no-to-mobile-mast-church-inn.blogspot.com/ , if that still ok with you? Please advise..
Thank you for all your time on this matter... regards Michael....
I'm working with Lenny Grice albeit that we are 'on hold' at the moment... further I was very pleased with the councils statement re conservation area as another reason and especially the statement that the committee/chair will always refuse masts on conservation land...
I look forward to our discussions on further appeal re Church Inn mast...
I will also add all your comments in full to the blog, http://say-no-to-mobile-mast-church-inn.blogspot.com/ , if that still ok with you? Please advise..
Thank you for all your time on this matter... regards Michael....
From: Cllr Stuart Bodsworth Sent: 11 December 2006 10:19To:
Subject: RE: Church Inn Mast Cheadle Hulme
Dear Michael,
As you will no doubt be aware, planning is a quasi judicial process and therefore has to be dealt with very carefully. If any application was refused without reasons founded in planning law and guidance, that refusal would undoubtedly be overturned at appeal.
So until and unless the Government change their guidance on mast applications, using health implications as a formal reason for refusal is asking for trouble.
However, the public perception, the fear, of possible health implications and the consequent impact on quality of life has successfully been used as a reason for refusal of mast applications. In fact I used that as one of the central reasons for refusing the recent application for a mobile phone mast on the BT building on Bramhall Lane South, outside Pownall Green School.
Stuart Bodsworth
Councillor Cheadle Hulme South
As you will no doubt be aware, planning is a quasi judicial process and therefore has to be dealt with very carefully. If any application was refused without reasons founded in planning law and guidance, that refusal would undoubtedly be overturned at appeal.
So until and unless the Government change their guidance on mast applications, using health implications as a formal reason for refusal is asking for trouble.
However, the public perception, the fear, of possible health implications and the consequent impact on quality of life has successfully been used as a reason for refusal of mast applications. In fact I used that as one of the central reasons for refusing the recent application for a mobile phone mast on the BT building on Bramhall Lane South, outside Pownall Green School.
Stuart Bodsworth
Councillor Cheadle Hulme South
From: Michael Eyres Sent: Sun 10/12/2006 7:36 PM
To: Stuart BodsworthCouncillor Cheadle Hulme South
Re Church Inn Mast Cheadle Hulme
Are you aware of this
"The Department of Health should be advising now the Department of Communities and Local Government that it is no longer possible in planning matters to instruct Local planning authorities that “health effects and concerns” should not be considered when considering Planning Applications as currently, stated in paragraphs 29 and 30 of Planning Policy Guidance Circular PPG8. "
and
" Genuine public fear and concern is a material planning consideration to be taken into account by the decision maker”.
This information is from the news section of
http://www.scram.uk.com/ well worth a look at re Telephone Mast matters of objection...
regards Michael.
"The Department of Health should be advising now the Department of Communities and Local Government that it is no longer possible in planning matters to instruct Local planning authorities that “health effects and concerns” should not be considered when considering Planning Applications as currently, stated in paragraphs 29 and 30 of Planning Policy Guidance Circular PPG8. "
and
" Genuine public fear and concern is a material planning consideration to be taken into account by the decision maker”.
This information is from the news section of
http://www.scram.uk.com/ well worth a look at re Telephone Mast matters of objection...
regards Michael.
No comments:
Post a Comment