PHONE MAST REFUSED
EM Radiation Research Trust Director Eileen O’Connor and concerned citizens David Bryant, Janet Roberts and Joanne Allman attended the Sefton Council Planning Committee meeting at Bootle Town Hall on Wednesday 21st September 2022
We are delighted to report that Sefton Council REFUSED the application for the phone mast monopole, equipment cabinets, electric meter and ancillary development including GPS module for the application CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Ltd. The application site was outside the entrance to Great Crosby Catholic Primary School on the corner of The Northern Road and Moorside Road, Crosby, Liverpool. Ref: DC/2022/01546
Details from Sefton Council Document Pack
REASONS FOR REFUSAL:
The proposed 18-metre-hight monopole would result in a dominating and intrusive feature which would significantly detract from the appearance and character of the area and does not comply with Policy EQ2 of the Sefton Local Plan.
No information has been submitted to identify the area of search and it has not been demonstrated that a robust search has been carried out of all practical alternatives.
The proposal could cause harm to pedestrian safety contrary to the provisions of Policy EQ3 (f) of the Sefton Local Plan.
Highways raised safety issues in relation to the layout of the equipment. Councillors Leslie Byrom and Janet Grace both strongly opposed the location of the mast positioned in front of Great Crosby Catholic Primary School.
A 1,044- signature online petition (updated on 12/9/2022) opposing the development was received by Planning Services on the following grounds:
‘The proposal would severely impact the safety of pupils, parents and children entering and leaving the school by reducing the pavement area and restricting the view of the road. A previous application to site a monopole outside Forefield Lane School was refused siting health and safety as a heavy factor ion the decision. It is not in keeping with a residential area.’
Note: The Forefield Lane application was withdrawn by the applicant and was not refused.
A 156-signature hard copy petition opposing the development was also received by Planning Services on the following grounds:
‘We object to the proposed structure on the basis of obstructing pedestrian traffic (prams, buggies, children, parents, bikes scooters, wheelchairs, mobility scooters etc.)
There is a heavy footfall, twice daily, to and from a busier than average primary school and nursery.’
191 individual neighbour/general representations were received. 190 of these representations oppose the application on the following grounds:
MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS