You must take down 'eyesore' mast, city council tells phone company EE
A PHONE company has been told it must take down a controversial 20-metre mast it installed in Derby – to the delight of campaigners who fought for its removal.
But the door has been left open for a replacement mast to go up in the "local area".
Orange, which later became Everything Everywhere (EE) after merging with T-Mobile, put up the equipment in Elvaston Lane, Alvaston, in March last year.
The city council said it permitted the move under "emergency planning rules", which allowed the mast to stay without formal planning consent for six months.
5% OFF HUMAN HAIR EXTENSIONS - PRINT YOUR VOUCHER TODAY
View detailsPrint your voucher and bring into store and claim your discount
Terms: one voucher per transaction
Contact: 01332 418268
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
The council said the use of these powers was "effectively" valid as it was intended to replace a mast on Yarmouth House, which was scheduled to be demolished. But campaigners were furious that the "eyesore" had been put up after no public consultation.
Now, after months of legal wrangling following the city council's refusal to extend the mast's stay to three years, the authority has demanded the equipment be removed.
In a letter which the Derby Telegraph has seen, the authority said it would "commence enforcement proceedings" if EE did not remove the mast within three months.
After the city council rejected EE's extension request, the company appealed but this was rejected by a planning inspector.
The letter, signed off by principal planning officer Sara Booty, added that "in line with the planning inspector's recommendations", a more suitable site for the mast in the "local area" should be investigated.
It says: "If you wish to undertake pre-application advice for a replacement mast, I am happy to discuss alternative options with you."
David Gale, a member of campaign group Roam (Remove Orange's Alvaston Mast), said residents would be pleased that it appeared the mast would soon be gone.
But he said he was concerned that EE could "spin out" its stay by appealing against the planning inspector's decision in the High Court.
He said: "We've stressed from the outset that this is far from a suitable location for a full commercial mast.
"We've always advocated that it should be put up near the Blue Jay (pub). In fact, that area is somewhat more elevated and they would get better reception there."
Councillor Linda Winter, who represents Alvaston, said "enforcement action" meant the council would take the mast down if EE did not.
She said: "When residents' looked out of their windows, this mast was all they could see."
When asked yesterday, an EE spokeswoman originally said the mast had already been taken down – which it had not.
She was asked to check her facts but did not make further comment.
16 Comments
View all
by mrbeanparty
Sunday, March 03 2013, 1:28PM
“I supose all these people complaining about the mast will soon be complaining they cant get a signal on there mobiles whenit is taken down!”
by Bolkovac
Sunday, March 03 2013, 10:33AM
“It appears that this mast never had planning permission in the first place and that council paid £70,000 to Orange (EE) as part of a negotiated settlement to remove the mast. It now seems that that money was paid unnecessarily because the council gave 12 months notice to Orange to quit the old site in March 2010. According to the R.O.A.M. Facebook page, because Orange failed to register an objection within 28 days, they were never entitled to a settlement. If that's the case, there needs to be an inquiry as to how the council, acting as landlord, came to pay tax payers' money to a company that didn't evefr have planning permission: http://tinyurl.com/ae9j6zr”
by Rob09
Sunday, March 03 2013, 9:59AM
“It's interesting that the DT report uses the word 'eyesore' to describe the mast, when in fact, no-one in the article uses that word. Anyway, the reason it has to be removed is not because it is an 'eyesore' or because of perceived health issues-it's because it no longer has planning permission. The reason for the delay beyond six months would be because EE have an additional time in order to exercise their right to appeal”
by Bolkovac
Sunday, March 03 2013, 9:15AM
“There seems to be more to this story than meets the eye - see the R.O.A.M. Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/7ynpx4m”
by vesparado112
Saturday, March 02 2013, 5:23PM
“http://tinyurl.com/6bpfs5 this is the group i was talking to,not the other one sorry,but the out comes and results are the same.”
by vesparado112
Saturday, March 02 2013, 5:19PM
“towercrane. i dont see why they would lie, http://tinyurl.com/awmclqc read for your self. i was talking to them,because they tried to put a mast up outside my house, we managed to stop them, we got the bbc and itv news teams involved,i also found some report from the Swedish army,who had been studying rf radiation,and a connection to leukaemia. when i presented all the evidence,they withdrew and erected the mast about a half a mile away, i am aware that 3 masts form a net,and if you are within the net ,you still get the rf radiation. but at least it did not devalue my property and the properties of my neighbours.”
by smshogun
Saturday, March 02 2013, 4:48PM
“As this was a temporary mast which was allowed to stay for six months, then why has it remained if has been there for more than six months, and why haven't Orange looked for an alternative location. Many masts are required, but, with a little foresight they can locate them in much better areas, many are installed on the top of buildings and the problem with these are the costs of rental of such roof spaces.
There are solutions, but people appear unwilling to look for them.”
by Stale
Saturday, March 02 2013, 4:27PM
“That's a relatively pleasant looking 'eye-sore'. Try looking at the weathered brown odd contraption put up by BT on Max road, Chaddesden, now that's an eyesore! (Oh go on, might as well say Chad itself is an eyesore ;) )”
by towercrane
Saturday, March 02 2013, 1:07PM
“Vespardo. The group was lyeing to you”
by vesparado112
Saturday, March 02 2013, 12:40PM
“The problem,is that it will just end up on some one else's door step.there is already technology out there,that does not require these mast,s.also the facts about the radiation,from them is hidden, i spoke to a group that measures the radiation out put from them,and what i was told was worrying. before they can measure the radiation legally,they have to notify the owner of the masts 1 week before hand,allowing them to crank down the power output,so the reading is low. hence the true fact are not revealed.”