Phone mast fears for Darras Hall First School

Jun 18 2009 by Adam Jupp, The Journal

PARENTS at a North East first school fear council blunders will lead to a mobile phone mast being built yards from where their children study.

Telecommunications giant Telefonica O2 applied to build the 12.5m structure outside Darras Hall First School, in Ponteland, Northumberland, but the move was met by a wave of fierce objections.

Northumberland County Council’s West Area planning committee held a meeting to discuss the proposal, at which the decision was taken to reject it.

But now it has emerged the refusal is not valid because it did not take place within 56 days of the initial application being received.

That means Telefonica 02 would be free to press ahead with the plans, despite families expressing concerns about the long term health effects of being exposed to electromagnetic radiation.

Councillors were forced to apologise for the blunder at the most recent meeting of the planning committee, and the news has been met with fury from staff and parents at Darras Hall First School.

Headteacher Peter Tincombe and chair of the governor Dr Nigel Twelves have written a joint letter to the council, in which they hit out at “gross mismanagement” by the planning department.

The report that went to the West Area committee gives details of the application for a “12.5 metre high slimline pole incorporating three 3G antennas found in the upper section of the mast.”

It is intended the antenna would be situated immediately outside the school gates, on the southern end of the Broadway and on the highway verge in the centre of Darras Hall.

The report states 18 letters of objection were received on the grounds of radiation hazard, clutter, over dominance, highway safety and visual impact.

Families are concerned that the long term health effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation are not yet known.

The report recommended that the application was rejected. It states: “The proposed 12.5m high grey shrouded pole and associated cabinet would introduce a highly conspicuous and alien structure into the locality and would therefore detract from the visual amenity of nearby residents and the school by reason of its prominence.”

The application was received on March 12, and because the proposed mast was less than 15m tall, planning permission is not required.

However, local planning authorities are still able to control details of siting and design for such proposals, provided they notify the applicant within 56 days.

The committee hearing at which it was decided the move would be blocked did not take place until May 14, meaning that deadline had passed and the ruling of the committee was irrelevant.

Telefonica 02 would be well within their right to press ahead with the moves, but have agreed to hold a behind-closed-doors meeting with council chiefs to discuss the best way forward.

A county council spokeswoman said: “There has been an oversight in interpretation of regulations in respect of this application.

“We have apologised publicly for this at the West Area Committee and officers are actively working to try to resolve the situation, including meeting with the phone mast company to see if a more suitable alternative site can be agreed. The company has agreed to meet and this will take place shortly.

“As the application was for a mast less than 15m high, it did not need planning permission, as such. However, under the regulations, the council can refuse or grant consent to its siting and design as long as the decision was made within 56 days of being notified of the proposal.

“Unfortunately, the 56 days ran out just before the meeting on May 14, a point that was overlooked when the application was considered.”

Calls to O2 were not returned.

Letter vents fury at planners

THE joint letter to Northumberland County Council from headteacher Peter Tincombe and chair of the governor Dr Nigel Twelves reads: “Once we were aware such an application had been received, we followed the procedures detailed to us by your planning office and lodged an objection.

“We understand a significant number of other objections to this application were also lodged. At the planning meeting the committee quite rightly rejected the application.

“You will therefore understand our dismay to learn that the proposal to place the mast outside our school is to proceed.”

It continues: “Further, we subsequently learn there was in fact no need to refer the matter to the committee at all and it could have been dealt with directly by your planning office.

“Failure to comply with the 56-day requirement is therefore further compounded by the utter neglect of your planning office to read and comply with these planning requirements.”

The school letter adds: “Further, there is already growing and bitter resentment amongst our parent body and the local community as they hear of the reversal of this decision.

“The realisation that it is the total mismanagement of this sorry process by your planning office that has occasioned this reversal is likely to fuel an already volatile situation.”