Council admin error gives phone mast green light

A COUNCIL admin error means a 17.5m phone mast can be put in a farmer’s green belt field even though he had ‘not been informed’.

Mobile company EE is now allowed to site the pole in a pasture at Red Brook Farm, in Adlington, despite objections from residents nearby.

Cheshire East Council received the firm’s application to do this on June 20 this year and had 56 days to make a decision, which expired on August 14.

But when the necessary public consultation notice of the development was not put up at the site until August 8, the three weeks until it expired ran to August 29.

By this time the deadline was missed and EE benefitted from ‘deemed consent’ by default.

Among the objections received was one from Red Brook Farm, which said: “As the tenant of the land on which this tower is to be built I have not been informed or had any discussion with the applicant as to how they intend to access the site to construct or maintain it afterwards.

“There is no adequate hard road to the site and the field it is to be placed on has historical features, ie ridge and furrow.”

Complaints from two other addresses also said the mast would be imposing and the increased traffic to the site it would generate would cause safety issues on the track to it.

The application follows one that was refused last year and has moved the location of the mast and decreased its height from 22.5m.

Like many phone masts this one is to improve signal for train passengers on the nearby West Coast Main Line but will, it is said, benefit residents in the area.

A report from Harlequin, on behalf of EE, says trees will screen the mast and the nearest residential property is 220m away.

Other nearby sites considered included London Road and Harrop Green Farm.

These were discounted for respective reasons of a taller 25m mast being necessary and flooding risk from a nearby pond.

The report stated: “(The mast) has been designed and sited having regard to technical, engineering and land use planning considerations in order to minimise its impact on the local environment, as well as a result of the previous reason for refusal by the council at a site a short distance to the south-west on the opposite side of the railway line.”

Council planner Faye Plant said because the public consultation period had not ended a ‘decision was not forwarded to the applicant’ by the necessary date of August 14.

She said in a report: “The proposal now benefits from having deemed consent and the development can be carried out.”

But did add that the ‘siting, height and appearance of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable’.

A council spokesman added: “Masts benefit from permitted development status, although the council has 56 days to refuse a proposal, should the siting or design not be acceptable.

“We would normally issue an approval notice by stating ‘prior approval is not required’; this deadline was missed and, therefore, planning approval was deemed to have been granted.”