At the time of the blunder I was so shocked that the application could automatically go ahead if no refusal was given.

Surely all planning applications, commercial or private, should not be allowed to go ahead until PERMISSION IS GIVEN.

This way, any oversight or delay in proceedings would not give automatic permission. It would be automatic refusal UNTIL permission was given and relevent applicants notified!

Absolutely shocking and unbelievable!!!!!

As far as the local residents are concerned (especially those who are directly affected by ill health aggravated by such) they should be given an allowance by T-Mobile/Council to enable them to move house.

I know its not ideal at a late time in life, but at least Mrs Johnson would be able to 'live' again and rebuild her life somewhere else.

Is there no proceedure/protocol in place to have the masts (or other planning blunders) to be removed? if not, WHY NOT? If my property was restricting the public in some way the council would surely give me notice to have it removed/corrected or they would enforce removal/correction.

YET ANOTHER COUNCIL BLUNDER, they should call the newspaper the Wirral Council Blunder ! I'm sure they could fill it each week with council, police, and governmental blunders!

Even better....rename the council...


WIRRAL BLUNDER COUNCIL!!!

Whilst we share the lady's anger at the mast being built, I have to say that this may be an issue with her heart which needs to be addressed, rather than the mast's "rays".

Having said that, any electromagnetic field has the potential to interfere with a pacemaker, so it could be something to do with that- but could that possibly be resolved by fitting a more uptodate pacemaker?

Is she not able to go out because of the fault with the mechanical heart, or her own fear of the mast? It sounds as if there may be an issue with the heart which needs to be addressed, and obviously the mast will not help that if it intereferes with the signal.

Again, the issue is that if of council incompetence. The fact that they claim "no suitable compromise" could be reached is becausse they were not prepared to pay out the compensation... yet they can find money to waste on numerous other things. Added to the fact that the council will no doubt face epxensive legal claims for maladministration by the Technical Services department, which will cost them a lot of money..

SL wrote:
At the time of the blunder I was so shocked that the application could automatically go ahead if no refusal was given. Surely all planning applications, commercial or private, should not be allowed to go ahead until PERMISSION IS GIVEN. This way, any oversight or delay in proceedings would not give automatic permission. It would be automatic refusal UNTIL permission was given and relevent applicants notified! Absolutely shocking and unbelievable!!!!! As far as the local residents are concerned (especially those who are directly affected by ill health aggravated by such) they should be given an allowance by T-Mobile/Council to enable them to move house. I know its not ideal at a late time in life, but at least Mrs Johnson would be able to \'live\' again and rebuild her life somewhere else. Is there no proceedure/protocol in place to have the masts (or other planning blunders) to be removed? if not, WHY NOT? If my property was restricting the public in some way the council would surely give me notice to have it removed/corrected or they would enforce removal/correction. YET ANOTHER COUNCIL BLUNDER, they should call the newspaper the Wirral Council Blunder ! I\'m sure they could fill it each week with council, police, and governmental blunders!

SL I agree with you about the council's incompetence, and that the mast may well be aggravating her heart problems, but this is only for a very small minority of people, who have fitted pacemakers or artifical hearts. I don;t see the need for grants to help people move out, unless it is an exceptional case like this, where she is not able to enjoy a good quality of life because of it exacerbating an existing condition.

The health effects from masts have been greatly distorted and exagerrated by parts of the media and health campaginers who have vested interests. so the giving of grants would in effect be playing along with this.

Most people round here living near the mast haven't had any problems (not healthwise at least) but have had visual amenity problems and loss of house value.

I have to agree with you Dave as I live near the one in moreton and haven't noticed any effects to the extent this lady has, but I guess that it can affect people who might have heart problems in the first place. I think you're right that emf fields from mobiles do have the possiblity of triggering pacemakers. Therefore I would agree with SM that perhaps this lady should be helped to move house as clearly she cannot enjoy a good quality of life if she is not able to go outside or to the shops!

One again, this is another example of how this council; and certain departments in particular are not doing their best for the residents of the Wirral. I wish this lady every success and hope that she is given assistance to move, or better still the mast is taken down so she can regain her quality of life.

Its been proven that phone masts pose NO danger at all, however they dont look to nice.
Its all a case of 'not in my back yard!' but we are all happy to have mobile phones eh?

pierre, would normally agree with about the alleged "health effects" but I think there are separate issues at stake here. One is the fact that emfs can interfere with pacemakers, and so this lady is unable to enjoy her house and garden, and the second is that of council incompetence allied with the ridiculous 56 day rule. If I wanted to build a conservatory, and didn't hear from the council within 56 days, would you then be able to go ahead and build it anyay? Absolutely ridiculous, yet this has happened here and in other parts of the country.

The rule that says planning permission is deemed to be given is there to stop Councils just sitting on applications forever and not giving an answer. That is the sort of think that used to happen and it seriously affected planning applications all over the place. If it didn't exist then it would be in the interests of councillors not to make a decision and that would undermine normal developments (house extensions, new hospitals etc...). This incident has been reviewed a number of times and what happened was just poor administration, even if the consequences are not good for some people. I can't understand the article, what is an artificial heart? There is no such thing in common use. I assume we are talking about a pacemaker here and I also assume the lady concerned is fearful of the effect the transmitter will have. However there is no mention in the article if these fears have any basis in fact (i.e. has she experienced problems when close to the transmitter or for that matter when close to anyone using a mobile phone). Simply calling to be bought out by the Council is just not good enough, that will cost everyone more money. I would like to know a few more facts here rather than just a load of emotion.

In response to Harry...

OK, I understand that the ruling was brought in to prevent councils 'sitting on' applications forever, but if the 56 day rule was worked in conjunction with the 'permission needed' rule as I stated above then surely this would be better than the 'refusal needed within 56 days'.

In response to Dave...

I understand what has been said about specific medical conditions and whether or not the codition is actually worsened by the mast, and I think that in specific cases those affected should be rehoused.

As a trained administrator for many years, I can't believe the incompetence of some admin workers these days. I'm not 'old school' (I'm 30+) but even in my day the trained admin worker had to get paperwork correct and completed by deadlines. IMO Wirral Blunder Council are now employing those whom have been on benefit far too long to get them out of the system and into work, it doesn't matter if they are qualified or not, they are shown the ropes and told to get on with it (low wage of course).

I'm probably not the only qualified person in Wirral finding it difficult to get a job locally within my own area of expertise because employers (and councils) are offering low wages for poorly skilled workers. They won't pay good money for quality skills... its like hiring a cowboy to build your house extension, you know they will cut corners!!!

Those with specific conditions like this lady certainly deserve special consideration, as it's clear that her quality of life is being disrupted.

The council do employ a lot of idiots (many of them at a senior level as well!) and as usual the bottom line is cost. They take on people of retirement age, who have been unemployed for ages, of certain races and ethnicity (in order to meet diversity targets) and in some cases, this has lead to the mistakes we have seen. Some of the people they take on are not competent at their jobs, yet nothing seems to happen.

I'll repeat that nobody has ever been sacked over the phone masts, when there should possibly have been several resignations. It's not even the first time it's happened at Wirral Borough Council, yet htey promise (again) to learn the lesson so it "never happens again" (Simon Holbrook); well Simon, this was promised 6 years ago when they made the last ****-up, and nothing happened!

FAO Harry, I too am unsure as to what the exact complaint is, but I would guess it is something to do with her heart, although it is not very clear from the article.

i feel badly for this poor woman, being a prisioner in her own home... when will the will of the people overpower, the need for technology??

Hey Swiss, you made it over here then. The issue that started all this is that the council denied permission for certain mobile phone masts but because they failed to notify the applicant within the statutory 56 days permission was granted by default. This council of ours are recognised as one of the worst councils in the country and the residents are now starting to tell the council what they think about them. You are indeed right that the tax payers wishes should be acted upon but in this case it was actually an administrative error that allowed the errection of the ooffending mobile phone masts. Nice to have some opinions from our American cousins

Dave R - I do believe that this woman's story was also unable to be heard at last week's meeting; despite the fact it is a genuine (and scientifically accepted) fact that pacemakers can be affected by the strong emf fields generated by a mast or other source at close range. This woman lives within that range.

To quote from the article "A Wirral Council spokeswoman said: "We apologise that no suitable compromise could be reached with T-Mobile and that the masts have now been erected."

T-Mobile worked with the council following obtaining 'deemed consent' for the 4 masts, this resulted in 4 new sites being investigated and a further 4 applications for prior approval being submitted to the planning department for consideration. In all but 1 case the applications were refused by Councillors. The sites were deemed by the planning department to be more suitable than the 4 original sites, however the Councillors did not agree. By refusing the applications this gave T-Mobile no real option other than to build the sites that obtained permission under 'deemed consent' owing to the fact that there was a demand for improved coverage in the area.

SL in Prenton, for confirmation a telecoms structure under 15 metres in height does not require planning permission, in fact the principle of that type of development has planning permission, it is simply the siting and design of the structure that has to be determined (approved or refused) within 56 days.

New rule,planning permision not needed,build what you want.

TO DAVE HESWALL...I know the health risks associated with mobile phone masts are a contentious issue but my personal opinion is that there is, under normal circumstances, no health risk. However I don't think that sensitive electronic equipment should be anywhere near EMR so in my limited knowledge that would certainly include heart pacemakers. Dont I recall that some experts in the medical field advocate EMR therapy to assist in healing processes, in particular, broken bones. Having said all that, as there are doubts, the people living near the proposed sites should ultimately make the final decision. I am only to aware that the council did indeed refuse planning permission in the case of the 4 original sites but due to Greens Departments c*ock-up....well you know the rest. It seem to me a totally ludicrous situation that this "deemed permission" applies only to mobile phone masts and its about time the Government did something to close this ridiculous loop hope....but will they....what was the reason for it in the first place? do the government and Local Authorities have something to gain from it? I suspect there is a substantial financial gain, as always.

There is only one valid reason to object to a siting of a mobile phone mast, and it is an aesthetic one. The supposed "health risk" from exposure to non-ionising radiation (anything other than X-rays or gamma rays) is, according to the best scientific evidence, very improbable. Unfortunately, Mrs Johnson has been taken in by the scaremongers.

Higher Beb Dave, I don`t wish to be rude but I think you have missed the point. The lady in question has had some sort of mechanical or electronic device fitted presumably to keep her alive. Whilst, as I have said in my previous post, I personally doubt EMR affects human tissue, I am in no doubt that EMR can affect electronic equipment, hence not allowing mobile phones on aircraft and hospitals requests mobile phones are not used. I suspect if you had a heart pacemaker fitted you would be apprehensive about Electromagnetic radio waves, I certainly would.

I think there's a little bit of over the top emotion being generated here. Mrs Johnson is not a 'prisoner' in her own home. Last week she attended a meeting of the 'Wirral regeneration and planning strategy overview and scrutiny committee' at Wallasey Town Hall. I would imagine that going to something like that would be more likely to generate a near death experience, even for somebody in good health, never mind someone with a dickey heart, than any death rays from a mobile phone mast. Dave- I believe these accursed things are to be allowed on aircraft. I don't fly, but if you do, prepare to be bored to death by braying nonentities informing their relatives they can see the Alps, and they've just downed their fifth G&T.

I greatly sympathise with the lady with the pacemaker who has the phone mast outside her home.

There are already many people in the UK and Europe who are suffering as a result of having phone masts erected too close to their homes.
Mast-Victims UK website http://www.mast-vict
ims.org
Electrosensitivity–U
K http://www.es-uk.inf
o/index.asp

Do not be deceived by mobile industry claims that their technology is harmless! The few studies that have been done near phone masts show adverse general health effects, neurological effects and increased cancers. That is reason for concern.
http://www.powerwatc
h.org.uk/rf/masts.as
p
http://www.mastsanit
y.org

The current permitted ICNIRP Guideline levels ONLY prevent the body being overheated. They do NOT prevent non-thermal effects which are well proven in numerous studies. These effects include genetic breaks . N.B. The ICNIRP Guidelines specifically state that they were NOT intended to protect against cancers.

In Germany, medical doctors are complaining loudly to their Federal Government about the medically diagnosed adverse health effects of phone mast radiation, as well as mobile phones and DECT cordless phones. Note that the effects included cardiovascular effects – cardiac arrhythmias and hypertension. That doctors’ finding is relevant here.
Further information about the German doctors Bamberger Appeal see http://www.powerwatc
h.org.uk/news/200507
22_bamberg.asp

The ECOLOG Report 2000 was buried by T-Mobile when it recommended that the current exposure levels should be immediately reduced by a factor of 1000x. The translated ECOLOG REPORT is available here on the HESE Project UK website. http://www.hese-proj
ect.org/hese-uk/en/n
iemr/ecologsum.php

Last year, the BioInitiative Report came to similar conclusions about the exposure levels.

Quote from The BioInitiative Report – Press Release (2007)
“An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health. They document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life.”
The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.”
http://www.bioinitia
tive.org

It is NOT ‘scaremongering’ to highlight the medical problems and hypersensitivity that are occurring already in some people as a result of having masts close to homes!

Margaret - I wondered how long before you Powerwatch/Mast Sanity loonies got involved on this one.....

No non-thermal heating mechanism has been discovered for mobile mast radiation - do you know why? Because it isn't there! The levels of the electromagentic fields generated by the masts are virtually non existent beyond a certain distance. The only recognise effects are from heating, hence the ICNIRP gudeline. They can't put a limit below that for effects that are not proven.

The studies you refer to are from discredited scientists like Gerald Hyland (slammed by his peers for his lack of honesty and flawed studies) and aided by people like Alistair Phillips (he of the elctrostatic hairdo) who has been perpetuating these scarestories for years... and guess what.... he sells "anti-emf shielding devices".....what a coincidence, not. He even tried to pretend he didn't when challenged.


I don't deny there are people who may have contracted cancer leaving near a mast and that there may even be clusters of people... but guess what... you get clusters of these cases in areas where there are no masts! It's called statistical probability, and so not all cases are going to be panned out evely across the country.

I'm sorry to have a go at you, but I am sick to death of the powerwatch/mast sanity pressure groups who distort the facts, try to scare people to serve their own ends, and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being the employ of the "mobile phone companies." Prof Lawrie Challis is certainly not in the employ of the mobile phone companies, and yet he also says the masts are by and large safe (he lives near one himself)

All people like you do, is try to scrare people to raise the genral level of fear in the communuity, and then all of a sudden you get many more people wanting to join you, convinced by your hyperbole and spin. The nocebo effect I think explains a lot of the reactions to mast - i.e. the fear something will harm you. It tends to disappear when people move away from the mast, only because of the removal of this worry, yet you would claim that is because they move away from these "harmful rays".

Whilst I and many others living near the masts are angry with the council and David Green's incompetence in runing a department that made these mistakes, we don't need the looneys like you coming on to push forward your own agenda. Why don''t you stick to Preston and its own (numerous) problems before coming here?

Forgot to add,the studies showing "genetic breaks" and other effects have a) been very small effects (not enough to cause any kind of health effect, as afterall any radiation can cause these effects.. even visible light!) and b) not been replicated by other scientists and published in peer reviewed journals. Wonder why?

The issue at stake here is actually the fact that emfs from masts (or any other typr of transmitter or source of emf) can interefere with pacemakers. This was not about the alleged non-thermal effects of the rays, which as we know, are tenous at best... groups like Powerwatch/Mast Victims/Mast Sanity/Mast Nutters would love for us to believe that there are, so we could all go out and buy some of their latest "emf shielding paint", very reasonably priced at only £100 a can or something!!

Please do not buy into the rubbish that these people spout, They have a vested interest in whipping up hysteria on these issues.

I agree with Dave on this one. I also live near the mast (in Moreton) and have not noticed these alleged ill-effects that Margaret from Preston claims exist. I also have friends who have lived or worked near masts for a good number of years who haven't grown three heads or suffered these ill effects. The likes of Mararet exist only as puppets for discredited researchers and some foreign scientists like George Carlo(who was given numerous research grants) who are trying to make a name for themselves by assuming that all convential opinion is always wrong, and that they are right.

Another guy tried to do that recently; "Dr" (used in the loosest sense of the word) Andrew Wakefield. Look what happened to him. Discredited, and with the deaths of children possibly on his hands.


Just ignore the likes of Margaret and they will eventually go away. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of this Council and the Technical Services division. They won't be going anywhere, when there should have been sackings.

This is a typical attempt by the mobile industry to brush under the carpet any research that does not suit the mobile industry agenda.

I do not work for Powerwatch or sell anything.

The scientists mentioned by Dave and Mike have not been 'discredited'.

I grew up and did my courting in the Wirral area, incidentally and I have family ties there. That is local enough I think.

I shall reply to the technical points raised by Dave over the weekend when I have more time.

Whilst, the main point may be about the Council incompetence, the fact that statements are being made by some readers that 'phone masts have no health effects ' are contrary to studies actually carried out by medical doctors who are medically qualified to access the health effects.
And, therefore are liable to be challenged.

Readers, I suggest that you go to the websites that I suggested and read the original research for yourselves.

Readers are capable of making up your own minds. I am sure they will not want their reading censored by the mobile industry.

Margaret, one small flaw in that analysis - I don't and never have, worked for the "Mobile Phone industry". Neither, I suspect, have Dave Rimmer or Mike.

The main issue here is the council's incompetence, you are correct - but to try and use this story to try and spread these health scares, as many of you Mast Sanity/Powerwatch lot do, is a bit sneaky.

Sure, I'll say that there is controversy over these issues; but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of informed scientific opinion holds that phone masts do not pose health risks.

I am sure that on a personal level, you may well be well-meaning and sincere in what you write, but I believe you are fundamentally misguided, and I do get angry when I see people from your pressure group (whether it be Powerwatch/Mast Sanity/Mast"Victims"
) trying to peddle your propoganda. The people you serve know perfectly well that the more people they scare, the more cans of emf shielding paint they can sell. Hence the spamming of local forums such as the Wirral Globe website, with your opinions.

Would you agree that people who complain of symptoms often get better when they move away from the mast in question? Would you put that down to being moved away from the mast, or because of the placebo effect? (i.e. that people believe that moving away from the mast will make them better, so it does)?? Please answer.

Yeah, go away Margaret! Don't you have a job or anything to do? We had "J elliott" from Bristol coming on last year, with exactly the same links you posted, so we already know about it.

I notice that you and others from these groups post this type of spam on numerous forums and newspaper sites, so I think most people here will already be aware of your views. Don't keep ramming them down our throats.

jazzy jezza wrote:
yoOu're all as bad as each other! Rays this, radiation that, i just want to cook my balls in the microwave! Margaret please don't come back here, you smell of fish!!

See you are out of the blender.What is it with you about putting your privates into kitchen equipment?

SPM.Jezza is like a preying mantis,he waits for a comment that just argues with the debate and a named person then he goe's in for the juglar with anal sarcastic remarks.I dont think there are many people on this forum that take any notice of him or his nasty comment's, myself included.When a person is empowered with knowledge and an understanding of the topic in discussion,they then decide on their own the pro's and con's. They then can decide on an informed choice.It is good to have, and form one's own opinion's.

amazed!! completely agree with your comments, and jezza certainly need to grow up annd stop talking about cooking his privates in microwaves or putting them into a blender.

With regards to the mast, then I have sympathy for this woman but I think the issue is being wrongly portrayed as something to with health hazards from masts, andit's not, it;s more to do with her pacemaker being affected. I would suggest that she goes back to hospital and gets a shielded pacemaker put in.

As for Margaret's comments; I would advise people here to take what oeople like her say with a pinch of salt. They have their own agenda which they try and put into local newstories as much as they can in order to spread their message. Most of them have no diea of the science, they just reproduce and repeat what they read in their pressure groups.

I live near the mast in liscard, and luckily do not suffer from the problems Ms Johnston does, but she would be advised to get her pacemaker checked.

The Council claim they tried to reach a suitable compromise for the residents- what absolute rubbish.. all they did was try and push through some alternative locations a few meters away, which were still near the same people. The only "suitable compromise" these idiots tried to reach was one to save the blushes of David green ad nthe rest of the incompetents in the Technical Services department. Get rid of them all is my answer, as the entire department is now discredited.

Can anybody update us as to what precisely the discplinary action taken against these staff from Technical Services was? Thanks.

Glen...not a peep out of them.....is this the start of the gagging policy that they are trying to bring in under the "Whistle Blowers Act"

Um...

She said: "I live on my own and am a prisoner in my own home and can't even go out to the postbox or shops.

As opposed to...

Mrs Johnson, due back in hospital this week for an operation to repair the heart, attended a meeting of Wirral's regeneration and planning strategy overview and scrutiny committee at Wallasey Town Hall last week

Theres a bit of inconsistency there.

Just thought I would reporduce some of the minutes from the Regeneration and Planning Strategy Overview and Scrutiny Committee Report. I've highlighted the comments from our beloved David Green.

In short, it's the classic "mistakes were made, lessons have been learnt, ho-hum". The 2 planning officers are still employed with the council - they should have been sacked immediately.

I will repeat the widely held view that heads should roll for this - and Green, we won't stop until those reponsible take proper accountability and RESIGN.

____________________
__
At its meeting on 10 January, Cabinet was presented with the results of a review undertaken by Mr Bernard Knight CBE, former Chief Executive of Bolton Council, into investigations undertaken following the failure by officers to issue appropriate notices of planning permission refusal in respect of four telecommunications masts at various locations across the Borough. Cabinet resolved:-

That

(1) Cabinet thanks Mr Knight for his report. Cabinet notes the fact that there is no indication of deliberate wrong doing and that the original findings of administrative error are confirmed.

(2) However, Cabinet expresses its concern at the finding of systemic failings in the Development Control section, in particular the need to improve the department’s performance culture and the shortcomings in professional advice and support. Cabinet welcomes the measures taken so far, but requests a further report be commissioned into the running and operation of the Development Control Section for submission to a future meeting of both the Cabinet and Regeneration and Planning Strategy Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(3) Cabinet requests that a further report be submitted to the Regeneration and Planning Strategy Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the recently published Ombudsmen’s report on telecommunications masts and the implications arising therefrom.

(4) Specifically, Cabinet further requests that a more pro-active interest is taken in the work of the Development Control Section on pre-application advice, the holding of roll out meetings with operators, the identification of suitable sites and the promotion of site sharing. Cabinet requests that Planning Committee and Regeneration and Planning Strategy Overview and Scrutiny Committee receive periodic reports summarising the department’s work in this area.

The minute has been called in by Councillors Chris Blakeley, Lesley Rennie, Leah Fraser, Andrew Hodson and Jeff Green on the following grounds:

“We believe that the issues surrounding this catastrophic mistake made by the Council, and the subsequent review of the yet, uncompleted internal investigation, leaves more questions unanswered than answered. We also have concerns that the amendment moved at Cabinet on the 10 January, 2008, by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, particularly with regard to clause 4 could result in planning officers pre-determining applications with Mobile Telephone Operators, thereby disadvantaging residents of Wirral.”

The Chair commented that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was now requested to consider the Cabinet's decision of 10 January 2008 in the light of the reasons given for the call-in and, having regard to the report of the Chief Executive considered by the Cabinet, to decide whether or not to support that decision. He commented that it was his constitutional responsibility as Chair to act impartially and to allow efficient scrutiny and analysis to take place. Consequently, he had circulated a protocol for dealing with the call-in and listing the witnesses to be called.

Councillor Mountney reported that the Conservative Group had complied with the instructions of the Committee in providing a list of its witnesses five days before the meeting, but they had only received short notice before the start of the meeting that four of its witnesses had been deleted from the list.

The Chair explained that he had taken this decision in the interests of efficiency in conducting the investigation because he did not see how these particular witnesses could add anything to the proceedings.

Councillor Mountney stated that without a proper explanation as to why these witnesses were not being called, the whole process was seriously flawed.

Councillor Blakeley reported that although he was one of the five signatories to the call-in notice, he was neither a member of this committee nor the mover of the call in, and Councillor Mountney was his group's spokesperson.

The Chair reported that he was prepared to make a concession and add Councillor Hodson's name to the list of witnesses because one of the four mast sites was within his Ward.

It was moved by Councillor Mountney and seconded by Councillor Pritchard:-

"That the Committee revert to the Conservative Group's list of witnesses, as originally put forward".

The motion was put and lost (2:5) (Councillors Mountney and Pritchard dissenting)

It was moved by Councillor Mountney and seconded by Councillor Pritchard that:-

"(1) This committee believe that in order to be open and transparent and to reinstate the confidence of Wirral council tax payers in their council there is a need for a through investigation to be carried out by an external authority.

(2) The committee believe that residents lives have been put at risk and blighted by the errors of this council, non of whom we believe have received a written apology or written explanation of the investigation carried out by this council to date.

(3) Therefore this committee instructs the cabinet to request Merseyside Police to carry out a full and proper investigation into this disastrous and disgraceful issue. Merseyside police are the only body able to interview and investigate all relevant persons, serving or non serving."

The motion was put and lost (2:5) (Councillors Mountney and Pritchard dissenting).

The Chair then proceeded to call witnesses in accordance with the protocol, and he invited all members of the committee to ask questions of the witnesses if they wished to do so.


(1) Mrs Joyce Johnson of North Drive, who was affected by the Heswall mast, stated that she had been fitted with a pacemaker and she was very worried about her health now that the mast was located close to her property. She circulated a number of photographs showing the appearance of the mast from her conservatory window.

She stated that the installation of the mast was having a detrimental effect on her health and ruining her quality of life. She asked the Council to take appropriate action to ensure the removal of this particular mast and its location to an alternative site.

Councillor Mitchell referred to the number of mast applications which were approved on appeal, and commented that planning legislation effectively prevented the Authority from refusing mast applications on medical grounds.

(2) Councillor Lesley Rennie addressed the meeting. She stated that the Council was striving towards excellence in customer engagement and asked if the objectors had received a written explanation regarding the errors that had been made with four mast applications.

She stated that there was no credible reason why her group's witnesses had not been called and emphasised that call-in was the only mechanism available to her group as an opposition party.

(3) The Director of Technical Services responded to questions from members.

Councillor Mitchell referred to the concerns with the current planning system for dealing with mast applications and the apparent ease and success of telecom companies gaining consent for masts by appealing against previous refusal decisions. He asked for an indication regarding refusal decisions by this Authority which had subsequently been overturned on appeal.

The Director referred to his report to the Planning Committee on 17 May 2007, indicating that 50% of applications refused by the Authority were subsequently allowed on appeal.

The Chair reported that Planning Officers had made significant mistakes in relation to these four mast applications, and he asked for a further explanation regarding the review of procedures and measures that had been put in place to ensure that there was no repetition of these unfortunate errors.

The Director reported that the measures had been accepted by the Planning Committee and the Cabinet and related to how staff were managed, the processes used, and the operation of the scheme of delegation. Staff meetings had also been held to ensure that all planning staff were aware of the revised procedures. All decision notices would in future be sent out, both by first class post and by fax, and there was improved monitoring of how applications were dealt with.

The Chair asked if letters of apology had been sent out to the objectors to these four particular applications.

The Director reported that letters of apology were sent out to approximately 600 people, inviting them to attend a public meeting because they had signed petitions objecting to the four applications in question.

The Director referred to key improvements which had been made post-April 2007, following the errors which had been made with the four mast applications. He referred to work which was in progress regarding the running and operation of the Development Control Section and the implications arising from the Ombudsman's report on telecommunications masts. It was also necessary to review the Delegation Scheme in the light of changes proposed in paragraph 4 of the Cabinet's resolution to move this matter forward.

The Director emphasised that the steps which had been put in place to enhance the Development Control Service would be continually reviewed to ensure that the errors would not be repeated. He reported that the investigations had now been concluded and, following advice from both Legal and Human Resource Services, a number of individuals would be held to account, using formal procedures.

Councillor Cocker asked if there was anything special regarding the procedure for dealing with mast applications which could increase the risk of human error.

The Director explained that there was a strict timescale of 56 days in which to determine each application, so that if the Planning Authority failed to notify the applicant of its decision in writing, deemed consent was granted. He acknowledged that this increased pressure on staff within the Development Control Section.

Councillor Cocker referred to the number of mast applications removed from delegation and asked if this was also a factor in increasing the risk of human error.

The Director reported that 89% of these applications were taken out of delegation, consequently introducing time pressures into the system. He was therefore looking to engage with members of the Planning Committee regarding the operation of the Delegation Scheme.

Councillor Cocker asked the Director for his views as to whether it would be useful for the Council to make representations to central government to remove the 56 day rule relating to mast applications.

The Director commented that this would be most useful. He also reported that the Ombudsman had referred her report on telecommunications masts to central government.

Councillor Cocker asked the Director for his views on morale in the Development Control Section, following the mistakes that had been made. He commented that it had to be accepted that mistakes had occurred, but the Council now had a duty to minimise the possibility of mistakes happening again.

The Director commented that the whole of the Development Control Section felt the impact of the mistakes that had been made and efforts were being made through staff briefings, reorganisation and restructuring to ensure that mast applications are handled properly in the future. The emphasis was now on moving forward with the built-in safeguards.

(4) Councillor Hodson, Heswall Ward Councillor, addressed the meeting. He commented that Mrs Johnson's life had been blighted by the error with the Telegraph Road mast application. He referred to his experience as Chair of council committees in allowing representations from all interested parties and expressed his reservations regarding the conduct of this meeting.

(5) Matthew Davies, Acting Development Control Manager, responded to questions from members.

Councillor Stapleton asked for his views on staff morale since the improvements had been put in place.

He reported that the measures were now in place, with the exception of amendments to the Delegation Scheme. All decision notices were now sent out, both by first class post and by fax, and staff were responsible for ensuring that they had been received by the applicants.

In terms of staff morale, it was recognised that mistakes had been made, for which the entire section was very sorry, and they were keen to take the improvements forward. He reported that a new team had been established to deal with mast applications and build up their expertise. The indications were that performance was back on an upward trend.

(6) Eddie Fleming, Principal Planning Officer, Forward Planning, responded to questions from members.

In response to a question from the Chair regarding his responsibilities, he reported upon his involvement with a working party comprising elected members, to produce a supplementary planning document on telecommunications masts.

He commented that he had worked in the Development Control Section prior to 2005 and was therefore aware of the repercussions following the mast application errors. He was available to provide policy advice and give guidance on the interpretation of planning legislation.

Councillor Cocker asked for his views as to whether mast applications should be treated differently from other planning applications.

E Fleming reported that the Council had made strong representations when the 2003 legislation relating to telecommunications masts was reviewed by central government.

(7) Rob Dolphin, Assistant Director, Support and Information Services Division, gave a brief outline of his role and responsibilities, and his involvement in the internal review process.

(8) Simon Goacher, Acting Monitoring Officer and Proper Officer, outlined his role and responsibilities as the Council's chief legal officer.

(9) Steve Maddox, Chief Executive, explained that his officers had failed to carry out the democratic wish of the Planning Committee on this occasion and this had affected many residents of the Borough, for which he apologised. He reported that the processes of the Development Control Section had already been reviewed by the Council's Internal Audit Section and further reports would be presented to future meetings on the operation and staffing structure of the Development Control Section and on the recently published Ombudsman's report on telecommunications masts and the implications arising from it.

He presented his report on the results of a review undertaken by Mr Bernard Knight CBE, former Chief Executive of Bolton Council, into investigations undertaken following the failure by officers to issue appropriate notices of planning permission refusal in respect of the four telecommunications masts.

The Chair asked if there was anything further that the Authority could do to address people's fears regarding mast applications.

The Chief Executive emphasised that the aim of the new procedures was to ensure that there was no repetition of these unfortunate errors. He also reported that action would be taken to advise all of those people currently affected regarding the review and improvements to the systems for processing mast applications.

(10) Mr Bernard Knight invited questions from members on the results of his review.

Councillor Mitchell asked for his views as to whether systems for dealing with future mast applications were now fail-safe.

Mr Knight commented that changes were adequate in terms of processes and procedures but there were some issues around the performance culture in the Development Control Section. He was aware of a number of changes indicating that this challenge was being accepted, but emphasised the need for further staff development to maximise the chances of these errors not happening again.

(11) Councillor Holbrook addressed the meeting in his capacity of mover of the Cabinet Motion. He referred to paragraph 4 of the Cabinet resolution relating to pre-application work, which was referred to in the Executive Summary to the Ombudsman's report and the section on Government Guidance (page 8) indicating that pre-application work was expected. It was proposed that either the Planning Committee or the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should scrutinise it in the interests of openness and, by taking a stronger interest in this part of the process, public protection could be enhanced.

He referred to the earlier Conservative Group motion asking for a police investigation but pointed out that there would have to be reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had taken place before they could become involved. He highlighted the findings of Mr Knight's report, identifying administrative error and systematic failures, rather than deliberate intent.

The Chair invited Councillor Blakeley to address the meeting.

Councillor Blakeley commented that the procedure for the conduct of this meeting was flawed and the exclusion of some witnesses had destroyed the Council's credibility with Council tax payers.

I've narrowed it down to the comments from David Green, and Matthew Davies, the Acting Head of Devlopment Control. I have to laugh at the part where he says that the staff members are "very sorry" for what happened - like that make it ok.... and we have to pay these people's wages....give us strength.

(3) The Director of Technical Services responded to questions from members.

Councillor Mitchell referred to the concerns with the current planning system for dealing with mast applications and the apparent ease and success of telecom companies gaining consent for masts by appealing against previous refusal decisions. He asked for an indication regarding refusal decisions by this Authority which had subsequently been overturned on appeal.

The Director referred to his report to the Planning Committee on 17 May 2007, indicating that 50% of applications refused by the Authority were subsequently allowed on appeal.

The Chair reported that Planning Officers had made significant mistakes in relation to these four mast applications, and he asked for a further explanation regarding the review of procedures and measures that had been put in place to ensure that there was no repetition of these unfortunate errors.

The Director reported that the measures had been accepted by the Planning Committee and the Cabinet and related to how staff were managed, the processes used, and the operation of the scheme of delegation. Staff meetings had also been held to ensure that all planning staff were aware of the revised procedures. All decision notices would in future be sent out, both by first class post and by fax, and there was improved monitoring of how applications were dealt with.

The Chair asked if letters of apology had been sent out to the objectors to these four particular applications.

The Director reported that letters of apology were sent out to approximately 600 people, inviting them to attend a public meeting because they had signed petitions objecting to the four applications in question.

The Director referred to key improvements which had been made post-April 2007, following the errors which had been made with the four mast applications. He referred to work which was in progress regarding the running and operation of the Development Control Section and the implications arising from the Ombudsman's report on telecommunications masts. It was also necessary to review the Delegation Scheme in the light of changes proposed in paragraph 4 of the Cabinet's resolution to move this matter forward.

The Director emphasised that the steps which had been put in place to enhance the Development Control Service would be continually reviewed to ensure that the errors would not be repeated. He reported that the investigations had now been concluded and, following advice from both Legal and Human Resource Services, a number of individuals would be held to account, using formal procedures.

Councillor Cocker asked if there was anything special regarding the procedure for dealing with mast applications which could increase the risk of human error.

The Director explained that there was a strict timescale of 56 days in which to determine each application, so that if the Planning Authority failed to notify the applicant of its decision in writing, deemed consent was granted. He acknowledged that this increased pressure on staff within the Development Control Section.

Councillor Cocker referred to the number of mast applications removed from delegation and asked if this was also a factor in increasing the risk of human error.

The Director reported that 89% of these applications were taken out of delegation, consequently introducing time pressures into the system. He was therefore looking to engage with members of the Planning Committee regarding the operation of the Delegation Scheme.

Councillor Cocker asked the Director for his views as to whether it would be useful for the Council to make representations to central government to remove the 56 day rule relating to mast applications.

The Director commented that this would be most useful. He also reported that the Ombudsman had referred her report on telecommunications masts to central government.

Councillor Cocker asked the Director for his views on morale in the Development Control Section, following the mistakes that had been made. He commented that it had to be accepted that mistakes had occurred, but the Council now had a duty to minimise the possibility of mistakes happening again.

The Director commented that the whole of the Development Control Section felt the impact of the mistakes that had been made and efforts were being made through staff briefings, reorganisation and restructuring to ensure that mast applications are handled properly in the future. The emphasis was now on moving forward with the built-in safeguards.

____________________
____________________
____

(5) Matthew Davies, Acting Development Control Manager, responded to questions from members.

Councillor Stapleton asked for his views on staff morale since the improvements had been put in place.

He reported that the measures were now in place, with the exception of amendments to the Delegation Scheme. All decision notices were now sent out, both by first class post and by fax, and staff were responsible for ensuring that they had been received by the applicants.

In terms of staff morale, it was recognised that mistakes had been made, for which the entire section was very sorry, and they were keen to take the improvements forward. He reported that a new team had been established to deal with mast applications and build up their expertise. The indications were that performance was back on an upward trend.

Unbelievable! The council refuse to sack anybody for this? What on earth do you have to in the council to get sacked? Mr Green states that a "a number of individuals will be held to account, using formal procedures" - yeah, they'll probably just get their overtime hours reduced!

I notice that Green stated that "on advice from Legal and Human Resources that a number of individuals would be held to account using formal procedures". Anyone know if that statement includes himself and indeed what formal procedures were used on the said individuals

Dave, it doesn't say, but as Peter says, I doubt it will include the horrific thought of somebody actually resigning or being sacked for gross incompetence/miscond
uct. I would say this type of error would easily qualify as "gross misconduct".

Green himself should not go unpunished - but a Departmental discplinary isn't going to sack its head! It should be a Council discpinary. Fat chance of it happening. The 2 planning officers referred to in the minutes are still, AFAIK, still working in Developmental Control. If you can't get sacked for this type of error, then one has to ask; what can you be sacked for?

Evening chaps just read these interesting notes from mike and I am still non the wiser about what actually happened and what the council have done about it? All it sounds like is that David Green has a pologised, but nobody has lost their job, he's going to make sure it never happens again. Wasn't this said a few years ago, when they made exactly the same mistake with another mast application? Thye promised then that it would never happen again. I'm sorry but this is nowhere near good enough and in the interests of local democracy and democratic accountability, people should lose their jobs over this.

With reference to Ms Johnston giving evidence, I think it could have been presented better. Just saying that you think your health is at risk isn't very persuasive.. I assume the Conservative motion saying that the mast "put residents lives at risk and blighted them" was in reference to the problems experienced by those with pacemakers - they should have got Ms jonhston to give precise evidence about how she is unable to do anything due to the interference with the pacemaker, rather than making vague comments.

they should have got Ms jonhston to give precise evidence about how she is unable to do anything due to the interference with the pacemaker, rather than making vague comments.

Exactly ! Stating she is a 'prisoner in her own home' and then proving she isnt by attending the meeting did nothing whatsoever for her cause and lost her credibility, in my opinion.

You have got to be able to speak their language. Emotive statements and dramatics are irrelevant and its hard facts that count.

Mr Green stated that apology letters were only sent to those who signed a petition (which most of us were not even aware of) so basically he is saying that only a very small proportion of people actually received an apology letter off the council.


Spiffy you are right over rather emotive statmements made about the mast as Mrs Johnston should have given them some specific evidence, rather than complaining of some unforseeen health hazard. Like others though I have no doubt that her pacemaker could be affected.

Has anyone seen why the Chairman of the Committee (Alan Jennings) refused to let 4 people speak because he "thought they wouldn't add anything to to the discussion".. that is outrageous: Committee Chairmen are meant to let all those registered as witnessess have their say.

Couldn't agree more with Dave and Spiffy that Ms Johnston has "shot herself in the foot" and played into the hands of the council. Shame she did not have legal and medical representation or advice. The outcome may well have been very different. As this whole affair is a matter of serious public concern the council should have been transparent in their response and advised the public exactly what action has been taken against the employees responsible for this mess. However based on their response to the "whistleblowers policy" they obviously have no intention of having an open, transparent communication with the electorate. This council has misguided effrontery to call itself democratic. Who are they kidding?