Councillor Jacqi Hodgson
Devon County Council – Member for Totnes & Dartington
(incl. Harberton & Harbertonford and Staverton & Landscove and part of Berry Pomeroy)
South Hams District Council – Ward Member for Dartington & Staverton
Totnes Town Council – Member for Bridgetown
Email: Jacqi.Hodgson@Devon.gov.uk / Cllr.Hodgson@southhams.gov.uk
Tel. 01803-840526 / 07922 411266
c/o home address; 9, Argyle Terrace, Totnes, Devon TQ9 5JJ
27th June 2018
Submitted online: enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk
The Planning Inspectorate,
Room 4A Kite Wing,
Temple Quay House,
2, The Square,
Temple Quay,
Bristol,
BS1 6PN
Submission regarding APP/K1128/W/17/3191716
South Hams District Council Planning reference: 3137/17/PAT
15m high replica telegraph pole mast with 2 base units
Sit location: Highways Land adjacent to Car Park,
A384, Shinners Bridge,
Dartington
Totnes
Devon. TQ9 6JD
Dear Sir / Madam,
This is my submission regarding the above planning Appeal.
I wish to state clearly that I support the key reasons for and recommendation of refusal cited in the SHDC Case Officer report, and for which I supported and provided a delegated decision of Refusal on 14thNovember 2017.
Support for local concerns and third party objections:
As a local elected public representative and in my own right I also agree with the many reasons for objection as cited by the many residents, local schools and community groups cited in the reports. These are valid reasons and none of which have changed.
I also support the many representations that I am aware have been sent into your offices regarding this appeal. Over ten of these and representations from the local schools (which in turn represent over 100 children and parents) have been copied into myself and I wish to state my support for those very valid objections.
You might be aware that a protest march took place just this week, when over 150 parents and children left the school early to make a public rally for their school, Dartington Primary School to the newly installed 10meter mast on the same site as that proposed as the subject of this Appeal. Their protest was about both the installed 10meter mast and the Appeal for the 15 meter mast. I entirely support their very valid concerns for the children’s health and wellbeing.
Two separate Planning Applications for masts at the same location:
You might be aware that there has been a recent installation of a 10 meter mast (in exactly the same location as that which is the subject of this appeal) further to the decision taken by South Hams Development Management (Planning) Committee for planning application 4325/17/PAT on 7thFebruary 2018 based on the Case Officer recommendation by SHDC to Vodafone that Prior Approval was not required. However at that DM Committee meeting (of which I am a Member) I put forward a motion of refusal which was seconded; however this was lost in the vote of 3:8.
However the same concerns and issues which SHDC found against the current subject of Appeal and this subsequent application for Prior Notification which was granted approval carries significant contradictions and it is with regret that I observe that the difference of 5mters on the height of the mast was sufficient to satisfy the Case Officer and eight of my colleagues on the Planning Committee. I would like to stress that the local residents were no further addressed in their concerns and reasons for objections in for the 10 meter mast proposal than they were for the shorter 10meter mast. I see no reason why the decision of Prior Approval not required for the 10meter mast could b used to argue in favour of the 15meter mast, i.e. the subject of this appeal as the 5 meter or 30% difference in the height of an intrusive structure in a picturesque rural village is a substantial difference. However I still stand by my view and that of the residents and other objectors that neither mast has a place in this sensitive location.
While I accept that planning applications can be made for sites and that the presence of another development on the same site does not preclude an application being valid or approved or otherwise; it would appear however that the applicant being the same for both mast structure applications in question, raises the concern of ‘planning by stealth’. I would have thought that this is not to be welcomed or supported by any planning authority.
I would suggest that Planning Application 4325/17/PAT was passed by a very slight but never the less significant difference from 3137/17/PAT and that difference was simply the five-meter height difference that had material visual significance.
Health and safety concerns:
The key concerns regarding this mast relate to the precautionary principle with regard to health and safety from non-ionising radiation emissions from the proposed mast. This principle was incorporated into the Principles of Sustainable Development as adopted in Rio de Janiro at the United Nations Earth Summit in 1992 and subsequently underpinned EU Legislation[1]. The Precautionary Principle enshrines the ‘Human Right’ to a safe environment.
While Health Matters in general cannot be challenged as the guidelines used (and approved by Government) says they are safe, we should challenge that very premise as the current guidelines ICNIRP) date back to 1999, almost 20 years ago and there have been many changes to the demand for mobile phone services as well as the power of the transmissions; the cumulative effect will be much more of an issue now. Before any mobile phone mast is considered for planning permission, in particular when health and safety concerns have been raised, we should ensure that the guidance being applied is in line with current research.
The Government’s own Health and Safety webpage has some useful information, some of which is clearly open to challenge, not least of which is that it is dated 21/05/2001, again over seventeen years old. On this (at point 15) it recognises the distress to residents living close to masts and at point 20 states”20 A further recommendation of the report was that there should be a programme of independent auditing of sites. It has been agreed that the Radiocommunications Agency (RA), an executive agency of DTI, will commence such a programme and will begin with an audit of base stations sited at schools” This raises the question “where has this been carried out and what are the results?”.
Other health and safety information and studies are available and make a clear case for public concern about these emissions for example: http://www.mastaction.co.ukand at https://www.radiationresearch.org/…/mob…/mobile-phone-masts/where it is noted that the major city of Paris is addressing this. The current guidelines need to be updated to incorporate this research and guidance.
In the mid 90’s The Irish Government produced guidelines for the planning authorities to use when mobile phone masts were proposed. These were based on then current Swedish studies which had raised health and safety concerns. The basic guidance was:
- Masts should not be sited within 1kilomenter of schools, kindergartens, residences or workplaces
- Masts should be monitored for their emissions on a regular basis
Children’s lives should not be put at risk as part of an experiment. The Glenville Tower tragedy should be a lesson to all decision makers about complacency and following paper trails rather than common sense and a prudent precautionary approach. Before any mast is installed a base line map of current non-ionising emissions should be presented to the planning authority and a further map indicating the anticipated cumulative effect on those baseline readings based on possible maximum radiation at any on time. Remember school children are in school and outside playing during peak usage times for mobile phone and associated likely emissions from masts.
Failure to properly consult with or consider other potentially suitable locations:
The local schools and Community Centre:
Immediate vicinity:
- Bidwell Brook special needs school
- Robins Respite Centre for special needs students
- Dartington Primary School
- Dartington Academy
- Meadowbrook Community Centre + outdoor play area and swimming pool
- Dartington Village Hall
Less than 1 km distance:
- Park School, Dartington
- Steiner School at Hood, Dartington
- King Edward VI Community College
None of these important community facilities were properly consulted and all are deeply concerned about the impact of a mobile phone mast so close.
One of the requirements of the planning process is that operators should consider a range of sites and justify why they select a certain site. The list of sites put forward with the planning application listed in the submitted Declaration of Conformity – Document 3241784 were not consulted either. Having spoken to a number of local people it seems that those who should have been contacted for these other sites, were not contacted, in particular the schools, who should also have been asked for the views on the proposal to site the mast where it is now installed. This is a material planning consideration that seems to have been flouted.
The Parish Council has offered to discuss with the Applicant other possible sites that could be far more suitable; in particular within the context of its Neighbourhood Plan group this exercise could provide a site that meets more of the preferential options for the location of a mast.
Under the Localism Legislation 2012 this would be a far more conciliatory way to assist th local community in determining what it needs and where such structures could be located.
Visual Amenity:
This mast was considered extremely likely to have a significant adverse impact on Visual Amenity in a rural village centre, in particular one with a high tourism and visitor footfall. The artist’s impression with the planning application was misleading as it suggested this mast would be within a row of much higher trees; trees that are actually on the other side of the road – this mast stand would alone and be very visible.
This has been borne out by the recent installation of the approved 10meter mast. It stands out in the landscape in an obtrusive way and detracts significantly from the village centre and the historic rural landscape setting.
Without reservation I restate my continued objection to this planning application and the appeal that has been lodged. I would like the opportunity to represent the local residents and groups who object to this planning application and the appeal thereon.
Yours faithfully,
Jacqi Hodgson
Cllr. Jacqi Hodgson
[1]The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) generally defines actions on issues considered to be uncertain, for instance applied in assessing risk management. The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.
In some legal systems, as in law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement in some areas of law.
Cllr Jacqi Hodgson 