Footpath 147 Durnsford Road - appeal by phone mast company - please take urgent action - Forum

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 - APPEAL UNDER SECTION 78

Site Address: Footpath adjoining147 Durnsford Road N11 2EL

Proposal: Prior notification application for installation of 1no. 12.5m monopole accommodating 3no. antennas with 2no. equipment cabinets, 1no. meter cabinet and ancillary works thereto

Appeal By: Telefonica (UK) Limited

Appeal Reference: APP/Y5420/W/20/3253283

Appeal Start Date: 08/07/2020

I refer to the above details. An appeal has been made to the Secretary of State against the decision of Haringey Council to refuse the above planning application.

The appeal will be determined on the basis of written representations. The procedure to be followed is set out in Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2009.

If you wish to make comments or withdraw any representations you made on the application, you must do so within 5 weeks of the ‘Appeal Start Date’ as listed above.

You can do this by emailing north1@planninginspectorate.gov.uk. All representations must quote the appeal reference. If you do not have access to the internet, you can send 3 copies of your representation (quoting the appeal reference) to: Nicholas Patch, Zone 3D Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN.

Please note that any representations you submit to the Planning Inspectorate will be copied to the appellant and this local planning authority and will be considered by the Inspector when determining the appeal.

The appeal documents are available for inspection at 6th Floor, River Park House, 225 High Road, London, N22 8HQ between 10:00hrs and 16:30hrs between Monday and Friday.

You can get a copy of one of the Planning Inspectorate’s “Guide to taking part in planning appeals” booklets free of charge from GOV.UK at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/taking-part-in-a-planning-listed-building-or-enforcement-appeal or from us.

When made, the decision will be published online at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk.

Yours faithfully

Dean Hermitage

Head of Planning and Enforcement

Here is a draft of what I am sending in if people want to use this as a framework for their own relpy or copy. The quote from the Principal Transport Planner is correct - I have checked this online. I think you need to reply by 11 August.

To whom it may concern (email. north1@planninginspectorate.gov.uk )

Appeal Reference: APP/Y5420/W/20/3253283 NOTE this appeal ref must be included in your reply

Haringey rejected this proposal on the following grounds- "The proposed development, by reason of its siting, appearance, size, scale and prominent location, would be visually intrusive, resulting in an incongruous and visually obtrusive form of development, out of keeping with the visual character of the surrounding street scene and would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the locality. The proposal if allowed would impede pedestrian movement along the footpath in this stretch of Durnsford Road. "

I agree with this finding and would like to add that a mast would very seriously impede the footpath, particularly in this era of social distancing (and who's to say that will change soon?).

Notably, one of the objections to the original application (see 73 objections on http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica…) includes an objection from the Principal Transport Planner at Haringey Council, as follows: “The proposals are similar to those proposed under Planning Application HGY/2019/0852 that were refused. Transport considerations therefore remain as before.These proposals would introduce additional street clutter and unacceptably reduce the width of footway in a location adjacent to a Park, along a route to schools and in the vicinity of a bus stop where a larger number of pedestrian would be affected. The proposed installation of cabinets / mast in the footway would impact adversely on wheel chair users and blind / partially sighted people. Furthermore, the narrowing of footway would disrupted the free flow of pedestrian and give rise to condition that cause pedestrians to step onto the carriageway, to the detriment of highway safety.”

I agree with Haringey’s decision to reject this proposal and hope that this appeal for planning permission can be rejected with these reasons again.

I also question whether appeals should be submitted at the start of the summer holidays when lots of people are away.

Regards

XXX

Replies

- Annabel Gregory > Cllr Alessandra Rossetti August 3, 2020 at 8:59pm
  
  Thanks very much for asking for an extension, Alessandra.
  
  Yes, no doubt they chose the school holidays to get fewer responses!
Ado July 25, 2020 at 1:03pm

Here is a draft of what I am sending in if people want to use this as a framework for their own relpy or copy. The quote from the Principal Transport Planner is correct - I have checked this online. I think you need to reply by 11 August.

To whom it may concern (email. north1@planninginspectorate.gov.uk )

Appeal Reference: APP/Y5420/W/20/3253283 NOTE this appeal ref must be included in your reply

Haringey rejected this proposal on the following grounds- "The proposed development, by reason of its siting, appearance, size, scale and prominent location, would be visually intrusive, resulting in an incongruous and visually obtrusive form of development, out of keeping with the visual character of the surrounding street scene and would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the locality. The proposal if allowed would impede pedestrian movement along the footpath in this stretch of Durnsford Road. "

I agree with this finding and would like to add that a mast would very seriously impede the footpath, particularly in this era of social distancing (and who's to say that will change soon?).

Notably, one of the objections to the original application (see 73 objections on http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica…) includes an objection from the Principal Transport Planner at Haringey Council, as follows: “The proposals are similar to those proposed under Planning Application HGY/2019/0852 that were refused. Transport considerations therefore remain as before.These proposals would introduce additional street clutter and unacceptably reduce the width of footway in a location adjacent to a Park, along a route to schools and in the vicinity of a bus stop where a larger number of pedestrian would be affected. The proposed installation of cabinets / mast in the footway would impact adversely on wheel chair users and blind / partially sighted people. Furthermore, the narrowing of footway would disrupted the free flow of pedestrian and give rise to condition that cause pedestrians to step onto the carriageway, to the detriment of highway safety.”

I agree with Haringey’s decision to reject this proposal and hope that this appeal for planning permission can be rejected with these reasons again.

I also question whether appeals should be submitted at the start of the summer holidays when lots of people are away.

Regards

XXX
- Susie Holden > Ado August 9, 2020 at 12:43pm
  
  This is a very helpful draft Ado. I've emailed north1@planninginspectorate.gov.uk as has my husband.
Cllr Alessandra Rossetti July 25, 2020 at 10:26am

I was about to post on this, I am glad it has been picked up.

I have asked the Planning department to notify all 75+ interested parties that have commented as I have heard not everyone has been notified and the consultation list published seems to confirm it.

Pleas remeber is important to quote the appeal reference in the email with comments
- Annabel Gregory > Cllr Alessandra Rossetti July 25, 2020 at 11:56am
  
  Yes, I commented on the original application, and haven't received anything about this. So many people will be on holiday now.
Admin July 25, 2020 at 8:50am

The deadline to take action is Tuesday 11 August.
Rosemary M Lee July 21, 2020 at 9:22am

Haringey rejected this proposal on the following grounds- "The proposed development, by reason of its siting, appearance, size, scale and prominent location, would be visually intrusive, resulting in an incongruous and visually obtrusive form of development, out of keeping with the visual character of the surrounding street scene and would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the locality. The proposal if allowed would impede pedestrian movement along the footpath in this stretch of Durnsford Road. " I agree with their judgement and hope this appeal for plannig permission can be overturned with these reasons again.
- Annabel Gregory > Rosemary M Lee July 21, 2020 at 12:42pm
  Yes indeed. Here's the site location, it would very seriously impede the footpath, particularly in this era of social distancing (and who's to say that will change soon?):
  
  site location
  
  which has a link from the details of the original application (and 73 objections to it):
  
  http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/Applica...
  
  The objections include one from the head Transport Planner at Haringey Council, as follows:
  
  The proposals are similar to those proposed under Planning Application HGY/2019/0852 that were refused. Transport considerations therefore remain as before.
  These proposals would introduce additional street clutter and unacceptably reduce the width of footway in a location adjacent to a Park, along a route to schools and in the vicinity of a bus stop where a larger number of pedestrian would be affected. The proposed installation of cabinets / mast in the footway would impact adversely on wheel chair users and blind / partially sighted people. Furthermore, the narrowing of footway would disrupted the free flow of pedestrian and give rise to condition that cause pedestrians to step onto the carriageway, to the detriment of highway safety.
  http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=1329270
Sheila Holloway July 20, 2020 at 5:49pm

This is completely the wrong the place for an ugly mobile phone mast. Haringey got it completely right in refusing planning permission: it would be a terrible eyesore in a beautiful, well loved green space and it would be a hazard to pedestrians passing by on an already busy stretch of pavement by the bus stop.

of 2

This reply was deleted.