Inspector dismisses appeal by Hutchison
'Flagpole' mast appeal dismissed
Beverley Guardian 4.04.06
PLANS to install a phone mast on a prominent building in the centre of Beverley have been thrown out by a Government inspector. The inspector has backed East Riding Council's decision to refuse consent for a 'flagpole' antenna and equipment cabins to be installed at no 68 Saturday Market.
Hutchison 3G Ltd had appealed against the council's decision, but the appeal has been dismissed by Mr J M Turner, an inspector for the Planning Inspectorate, who ruled that the proposal would harm 'very considerably' the character of Beverley's Conservation Area.
Although he accepted that the proposed mast would meet guidelines on radiation exposure, Mr Turner did not accept that by disguising it as a replica flagpole it would be a sympathetic addition to the streetscene.
He said the building was a handsome and prominent structure, at a key location where two roads meet in North Bar Within. "The appellants urge on me the proposition that the imitation flagpole intended would be a sympathetic addition to the scene but I do not agree," he said.
"I accept the council's observations that the disguised mast would not look very much like a flagpole anyway but in any event it would not be at home atop a commercial building as a feature, if genuine, more commonly to be associated with a civic or public use."
04 April 2006
Beverley Guardian 4.04.06
PLANS to install a phone mast on a prominent building in the centre of Beverley have been thrown out by a Government inspector. The inspector has backed East Riding Council's decision to refuse consent for a 'flagpole' antenna and equipment cabins to be installed at no 68 Saturday Market.
Hutchison 3G Ltd had appealed against the council's decision, but the appeal has been dismissed by Mr J M Turner, an inspector for the Planning Inspectorate, who ruled that the proposal would harm 'very considerably' the character of Beverley's Conservation Area.
Although he accepted that the proposed mast would meet guidelines on radiation exposure, Mr Turner did not accept that by disguising it as a replica flagpole it would be a sympathetic addition to the streetscene.
He said the building was a handsome and prominent structure, at a key location where two roads meet in North Bar Within. "The appellants urge on me the proposition that the imitation flagpole intended would be a sympathetic addition to the scene but I do not agree," he said.
"I accept the council's observations that the disguised mast would not look very much like a flagpole anyway but in any event it would not be at home atop a commercial building as a feature, if genuine, more commonly to be associated with a civic or public use."
04 April 2006
rudkla - 6. Apr, 19:11
