Hartley Wintney

Hartley Wintney Water Tower, Hartley Wintney, Hook, Hants, RG27 8TS. Planning application/s 02/01665/Ful and 03/00653/FUL, refused, and Airwave’s appeal no: APP/N1730/A/03/1122820 dismissed, concerning the Hartley Wintney Water Tower, Hook, Hants, RG27 8TS.

How can a developer, working indirectly for the Home Office, be seen to blatantly breach planning law, proceeding with a proposed development that has been refused twice by a democratic planning process and subsequently having been dismissed on Appeal? Whatever is the purpose of having a planning system/appeal system if these decisions are completely ignored? Airwave mmO2’s actions cannot be seen to comply with the FEI/ten commitments, the so-called ‘traffic light system’.

Although an admin error caused a wrong letter to be sent to the developer, this error can not be seen as a democratic decision, taking into account the views of all those consulted with, as recommended by Government planning guidance or the Code of Best Practice etc. Even if the error ‘grant’ letter has legal value, then the conditions attached have not been complied with. By issuing the second application, these conditions were not overcome. What faith can we have that Operators will not break safety guidelines? In the interest of the community as a whole, how reliable is a company that proceeds with numerous (I understand) illegal masts/telecomms developments, in the interest of (?) their shareholders? What faith can one have that bullying tactics of this kind would not override safety issues for those that have to use the equipment, work on the installations, work with this technology etc.?

The Code of Best Practice is of no value unless some regulator can reinforce particularly compliance to the FEI Ten commitments etc. Without some regulation these commitments can and are, in some cases, completely ignored.

But I do have to stress that not only the TETRA antennae are ‘unlawful’ development, most of what is on this Water Tower has been built under PDR (Permitted Development Rights) but did not fall in the permitted development allowance. We are not only concerned about health effects, our visual amenity is a big issue as well, and we do not only object to TETRA antennas in sensitive, unsuitable locations, ie residential areas, near schools, or hospitals etc. We wish for precaution concerning all frequencies, 2G 3G 4G 5G TETRA and whatever else is to come. We think it only common sense to halt this rollout until all research has been concluded, and independently assessed.

 HART Council is taking on the long arm of the law as protests continue to rage over a controversial mobile base station.

top of page