Tuesday, 27 September 2011

Pacific Road Mast Application

A planning application for a Vodafone/O2 mobile 'phone mast on Pacific Road, Trentham met with significant opposition locally.  I, along with many others, submitted an objection.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council on this occasion supported community wishes by rejecting the planning application on the grounds that the design, height and location of the mast and associated equipment would result in a visually intrusive and incongruous structure in the streetscene, contrary to PPG8, CSS Policy CSP1 and Structure Plan Policy D2.

Mono consultants,on behalf of Vodafone, have now appealed.  In a nutshell they seem to be saying that they think the mast would look ok and they can't find anywhere else to put it.  But shouldn't local people be the ones to determine this?

The appeal will now be considered by the Planning Inspectorate. They are asking for, amongst other things, evidence of existing coverage gaps.  This is interesting because I did not feel convinced of the need for the mast from the evidence provided, though Vodafone must think there is a need, given their determination to pursue this.

I wonder who will win?  Big companies or little local people and their council?



  1. O2/Vodafone have submitted a planning application for a 12.5m mast on New Hall Lane, Heaton, Bolton. The submission by Mono appears to be a cut and paste copy of the report used in the Trentham case.
    They forgot to replace all the instances of the town name on their document. (sloppy)
    It is being forced through against the wishes of local residents.

  2. Surprisingly though, they did decide not to pursue an application for a mast at 57 New Hall Lane because they thought they wouldn't get planning permission.
    Perhaps this was because the Bolton West Conservative association had their offices next door at number 55, or that a local Tory councillor lives opposite at number 52.
    Or maybe that's just a coincidence.

  3. Anonymous, I've come across that cut and paste issue before from other organisations, I agree it is sloppy. A couple of years ago we fought (and won) against a planning application for a school on Adderley Green in Stoke-on-Trent.


    My powerpoint presentation included the following:

    "Stoke-on-Trent BSF Travel Plan
    In section 1.4 it states:
    “Section 3 describes the proposed redevelopment of the schools within Wolverhampton that this framework is focussing on.”"

    Wolverhampton indeed!

    I also said:

    "Plans are being cut and pasted from one area to another without any care for local communities."

    This is exactly what you are up against in Bolton.

    We got somewhere with the school issue, in that the green space at Adderley Green was saved. The school is being built elsewhere, although not on the site chosen by the community schools action group at that time.

    As far as the mast in Trentham is concerned, although the council supported the community wishes and rejected the planning application as described in the blog, Mono consultants won their appeal. So we are getting a mast whether the community likes it or not. It's not gone up yet, though they did seem to be preparing something underground for it a while back.