| Subject |
The
Council has ignored residents' views and looks set to choose
a poor option to solve the challenge of mobile communication
masts
|
| Ref |
PR/06-132 |
| Date |
Tuesday
16th May 2006 |
Failure to listen to residents
At a lively Council meeting on 18th April Tobias joined residents
representing Moordown, Queen's Park and West Southbourne in addressing
councillors about the failings of the Council's mast policy and
the litany of mistakes that led to masts being erected even though
planning permission had been 'refused'.
All were invited
to speak at the 17th May Cabinet meeting (tomorrow) where these
matters would be debated and action agreed.
To everyone's
surprise, a day before this meeting, the Council have announced
that three options have already been debated and one of these is
being recommended as the way forward. At no stage were Tobias or
the residents, who submitted petitions of over 4,000 signatures,
invited to contribute to the three options or more importantly discuss
which of those three should be selected. Whilst all will be submitting
deputations at tomorrow's meeting, it is clear residents' views
are not being considered and the democratic process has not been
followed.
Option 3:
The wrong option
In its attempt to improve the Town Hall's mast policy the Council
intends to pursue 'Option three'. Presently, Council policy prevents
council land being used to site mobile phone masts within 200 metres
of any residential property. 'Option 3' reduces this distance to
100 metres. However, placed in context, it will have little influence
as to where masts are sited as Highways Agency land (e.g. most pavements)
is not classified as Council land and mobile phone operators are
charged no annual fee. The 02 mast by Wessex Way near Park School
is an example of this. It also does not affect private properties
such the pub on Wimbourne Road, where a Hutchinson 3G mast has been
placed 4 metres from a baby's bedroom.
New option
4
Tobias is proposing an alternative solution allowing Council land
to be used, subject to the approval of full planning application.
This will ensure residents are consulted, the proposal is properly
debated and voted upon and the Council can commercially benefit
from any successful mast application. This proposal will not deter
mobile phone operators from considering Council land in the first
place and increase the number of locations where any individual
mast could be placed.
Tobias Ellwood said:
"Failure
of the Council to consult with residents has lead to a litany of
mistakes with masts erected where they should not be. It seems little
has been learnt as a solution is recommended without the input of
the very people who the Council promised to listen to.
Far from resolving
the problems surrounding the Fisherman's Walk, Wimbourne Road and
Queen's Park masts Option 3 will compound them, limiting the land
available for operators to consider. How can the Council claim to
look after residents' interests by effectively denying the use of
Council land when rules for masts on pavements remain unchallenged?
The Council's
preferred option will deny the town vital income (average £5,000
per mast a year) and encourage operators to opt for Highways owned
land (pavements) every time.
The haste in
which the Council has drawn its conclusions, without considering
the views of the those who drew attention to the mast problems in
the first place is reflected by a recommendation which will compound
rather than solve Bournemouth's mast issues. I urge the Council
to think again."
|
