T-mobile want to place a mast in Moreton because of lack of network coverage in the area. Maybe I'm missing something here but I live in Moreton and my employers use T-mobile as their mobile provider. I've never noticed a problem with coverage anywhere on the Wirral so why do they need more masts in the area?

I am so pleased for the people of Moreton that they have managed to stop this monstrosity for the moment. There is so much evidence that they cause health problems including cancer. Of course T-Mobile and the other phone operators will just not back down and Moreton will be sure to have another such fight on its hand in a relatively short time. Could I please ask everyone reading this to sign the online petition: http://petitions.pm.
gov.uk/PhoneMasts/ that asks the government to acknowledge the evidence and stop these masts being put where they can harm people.

Great result for those who have campaigned so hard on this issue!
Well done!!

However lets face fact here this issue should never have arose and only due the incompetence of Mr David Greens planning department, these applications should never have been on agenda and thereby wasting time and effort.

It’s very clear these applications were purely submitted to reduce the redness in the red faces of Mr David Greens planning department.

Fair play to those councillors on the Planning Committee who refused to spare Mr Greens blushes and therefore leaving a situation whereby planning has been granted by default due to the incompetence and maladministration of Mr Greens department.

I sincerely hope the same thing does not happen again with these applications otherwise we will have two sets of ‘rejected’ planning applications approved by default and sitting side by side.

For those who did not attend the Planning Committee meeting, here is the full text of the warning letter from ourselves (Guy Dodd Solicitors) read out to the committee members before they made their decisions and which seems, together with the significant voices of residents, to have been influential and taken into account.

Those whose homes are close enough to the locations of the original sites of those three applications refused (if, as must be assumed, the masts will now be erected) as well as those close to the Claughton site now approved, will be entitled to make claims to the Local Government Ombudsman for compensation for continuing distress from health concerns levels (particularly those with young children) as well as compensation for loss of value in their homes. Some, especially those who objected initially, may also be entitled to claim higher compensation through the courts, albeit that is an issue requiring legal investigation and depends on the precise reasons why the original refusal notices were not sent out in time. We are organising a group investigation of damage levels including retaining an expert valuer. Our letter below refers to one previous case which awarded each resident £550 . In that case the masts was erected for only six months so there was no loss to the value of the homes. In the present cases, the loss will, of course, be much greater. We are satisfied that the fact that the medical and scientific evidence is not conclusive is not relevant. There are sufficient concerns amongst the medical and scientific community to make concerns amongst the public to be reasonable and realistic. As a result, and in addition to the obvious worries left at the back of people’s minds, a house buyer with a choice of two similarly priced houses but with one close to a mast, will be more likely to chose the house not close to the mast. The owner of the house close to the mast will, therefore, have to reduce the price of the house in order to attract a sale leading to a loss of value in the owner’s investment.

Whilst residents can submit their own applications direct to the Local Government Ombudsman, there is value to everybody in having their claims submitted in a group as well as the benefit of legal advice when presenting argument in support of the level of compensation sought to be awarded.

To join the group action either complete the form online at www.TheLicenceProtec
tors.com , where you will be given your own personal online file to communicate with this office (no need to visit us) or phone 01244 315577.

To
Mr David Green
Director of Technical Services
Wirral Borough Council
Town Hal
Wallasey
CH44 8ED


Dear Mr Green

Planning Applications 2007/6202, 6203, 6204 and 6206

We have been asked to advise residents close to the locations the subject of the above planning applications which we understand are for hearing on the 12th July.

At the present time, it is not yet possible to indicate a course of action if any that may be taken by residents until the outcome of the planning application, and the intention of T- Mobile, is known. However, we have very real concerns about the manner in which these applications will be considered at the meeting on the 12th July and feel it important to write to you and to ensure that the Committee is fully aware of these concerns before the meeting. Let us clarify these concerns.

There can be no dispute but that the failure to serve notice of refusal of permission to the original locations in applications numbered 2007, 5366, 5349, 5308 and 5303 amounts to maladministration. As a result, if the masts are erected under deemed permission in their original locations the residents will be able to obtain an award from the Local Government Ombudsman. The Wycombe District Council case from last April ((06/A/4924, 5646, 5793 & 6440) valued damage at £50 per month per resident plus £250. With 600 objectors and , unlike in the Wycombe case, the masts likely to be there for many years to come, together with the undoubted reduction in value of houses, will mean that such claims will amount to a very significant sum for which Wirral Council will be liable. Given the fact that this is the second time this has happened and that, therefore, the Council has clearly not made adequate effort to learn from its mistakes, and thus give any reasonable hope that this sort of blunder will not occur again in the future, the LGO will be justified in evaluating claims at the higher end of the scale. In addition, as , unlike in the Wycombe case in which the masts were taken down after six months, in the present cases the masts will be erected for a very long period of time, such will adversely affect house values with the result that those selling near the masts will have to reduce their prices to below those of similar houses away from the masts if they wish to find a willing buyer.

Reports in the local newspapers of quotations from Council officers indicate that the current negotiations with T- Mobile for replacement locations have been motivated by a desire to avoid paying compensation out to that company. It would seem that Council members may not be aware of the potential size of the liability to the residents were they to approve alternative locations that are so close to the original sites as to provoke objection from the same body of residents. In fact some of the original objectors live closer to the alternate sites than the originals.

We are concerned that members may be influenced by comments made by Mr David Green at the recent public meeting to the effect that the LGO encourages Councils, in situations like the present, to negotiate alternative locations with the mobile provider. Whilst this, in principle, is agreed what we challenge very strongly is the suggestion that Mr Green may be making to Committee members that ANY alternate location will suffice. The LGO’s recommendation is on the basis that the alternate locations, apart from being acceptable under general planning considerations, are not so close to the original locations as to be objected to with the same weight and force as the original locations. If members understand that the current locations would not fit within the LGO’s recommendations then so be it, but we wish to ensure each member is aware of this fact before voting on these applications.

It follows from the above that there are concerns whether members of the Committee will truly be able to deal with these applications on an objective basis. There is a significant conflict of interest with the public perception being to the effect that approval may be in part motivated by a desire to protect the Council from paying out compensation to residents. In this regard we wish to make clear that, should approval be granted to the alternate sites, this may give grounds for claims, which may well be taken through the courts rather than the LGO, not only by those original objectors who are still adversely affected, both as to anxiety and loss of house value, by the new applications, but also by other residents who are only affected by the new locations but will claim that , but for the original maladministration, the new locations would not have been approved. From what we can tell from the plans the new locations are in fact very close indeed to the original locations.

As we say, we are motivated to write to you in these terms in an attempt to ensure Council members are fully aware of the potential implications of their decisions on the 12th July.


Yours faithfully

Guy Dodd

This represents yet another **** up by the council, and if Green had any decency he would resign, considering this is not the first time this shambles has happened. This isn't over yet, and T Mobile will be receving representations outosude of the Council.

Dear Mr Dodd,

May I commend you on an excellent post and the fact that you have taken up the issue for the said residents.

For too long this department (WBC Planning) has got away with severe examples of maladministration which have directly impacted on the quality of life of the residents of Wirral.

I have previously, on this site, expressed concern to what extent the LGO will be able to take action fearing at the worse Mr Green’s department will get a ‘slight’ slap on the wrists. However as a group petition this will obviously carry a lot more weight.

Well done again!

MESSAGE TO KELLY BARKER WIRRAL GLOBE

Kelly, not sure if featured in this weeks Globe but I believe Mr Dodd’s letter should get as much space as possible to further highlight the severity of this issue and the fact it is purely created by the incompetence of Mr David Green’s department.

Keep up the good work!!