5G Mast being installed on a friend's property

daveyjp

You need land ownership and adopted highway plans as I've seen land ownership plans which include areas which are now obvious adopted highway,

TN1984

daveyjp said:

You need land ownership and adopted highway plans as I've seen land ownership plans which include areas which are now obvious adopted highway,

My friend has now had a meeting with a local planning consultant, who essentially said from a legal POV it would appear to be a done deal. I didn't get the full conversation they had but I suspect what you have said above is where the issue lies, as he was told the highway authority have already given their permission for it to go ahead. Apparently it is to do with the fact they have agreed to maintain the grassy area - he's lived there 20 years and they never have, but he was told that is irrelevant to the point. Sorry if that doesn't actually make much sense, the information is pretty much third hand at this point.

Either way, although hopeless from a legal POV he did gather together reactions from a lot of neighbours and took them to the surveyor submitting the plans, who in turn went back to his employer. The surveyor called him back and confirmed they will be withdrawing the application and finding a different site. Obviously good news for him and hopefully they stick to that, though they just seemed to back down a bit too easily so I am still a bit worried for him it isn't over yet.

Section62

TN1984 said:

Apparently it is to do with the fact they have agreed to maintain the grassy area - he's lived there 20 years and they never have, but he was told that is irrelevant to the point. Sorry if that doesn't actually make much sense, the information is pretty much third hand at this point.

It makes sense, but some of the details might have got lost along the way.  Adoption of roads only applies to cases where a new road has been built (by someone other than the highway authority) and the owner of the road wants the highway authority to 'adopt' it as a highway maintainable at public expense (aka 'Public Highway')

Other roads (the majority) have been highways maintainable at public expense since authorities took over the role of maintaining roads from the parish or landowners whose land the road crossed.

The land doesn't become highway because the highway authority have maintained it, the highway authority have to maintain it because it is a highway maintainable at public expense.

And if the road is 'public highway' the utility companies have rights to place their equipment in and on that land.

In this case the verge was deemed to be part of the highway and therefore fair game for the Telco to site a mast on.

TN1984 said:

Either way, although hopeless from a legal POV he did gather together reactions from a lot of neighbours and took them to the surveyor submitting the plans, who in turn went back to his employer. The surveyor called him back and confirmed they will be withdrawing the application and finding a different site. Obviously good news for him and hopefully they stick to that, though they just seemed to back down a bit too easily so I am still a bit worried for him it isn't over yet.

This does seem odd.

The Telco have already spent a lot of money on identifying the site, surveying it, and submitting a planning application.  They don't usually back down so quickly in response to objections.

Without knowing more I'd speculate they may be less certain about the ownership of the land than they were to start with.  It isn't uncommon for utility companies to think land is highway when it isn't.

But good news so far.

AdrianC

Section62 said:

The Telco have already spent a lot of money on identifying the site, surveying it, and submitting a planning application.  They don't usually back down so quickly in response to objections.

Without knowing more I'd speculate they may be less certain about the ownership of the land than they were to start with.  It isn't uncommon for utility companies to think land is highway when it isn't.

This seems the most likely situation to me.

The one other question mark is whether mobile network operators have similar powers to power and phone, with the ability to install in return for a wayleave. I don't think they do, but...

Ultimately, anybody can apply for PP on any land. The application is viewed on its merits. Whether the applicant has the landowner's permission is not relevant to the actual PP app...

Gavin83

TN1984 said:

Section62 said:

TN1984 said:

Do any of these images help? 

His is the property shaded green?

If so, does he know why the hedge was planted set back from the edge of the footway?  Several of the properties on that extract appear to show similar double lines - what he needs to find out is which line represents the true boundary.

How long ago were the properties built?

Do the deeds (or any of the neighbour's) contain a plan showing the property with measurements rather than just a red line on an OS plan?

The shaded green area is his property, yes. The properties were built in the mid 1990s.

The only other map he gave me is below, which is cut from the land registry title. It's not a very good quality image though:



I take it from the replies that proving the land is his is his only way to stop it? It seems these structures do not have to take into account any negative consequences to surrounding areas as to where they are located?

What negative consequences?

Fair play for getting them to back down though, although I expect this might not be the last he'll hear of it. Depends on how many other suitable sites exist.

Section62

Gavin83 said:

What negative consequences?

Tastes differ, but I don't think this looks particularly attractive...




...and as a buyer would be put off by the visual impact alone.

The bank of control cabinets (with mechanical cooling) won't win any streetscene improvement awards either.

Gavin83

Section62 said:

Gavin83 said:

What negative consequences?

Tastes differ, but I don't think this looks particularly attractive...




...and as a buyer would be put off by the visual impact alone.

The bank of control cabinets (with mechanical cooling) won't win any streetscene improvement awards either.

I agree, it's ugly. However this isn't necessarily a valid planning objection. You can object based on visual amenity but this may well not apply here, although it's hard to say without knowing the area. This would be unlikely to go up in a conservation area. On the side of the road in a normal neighbourhood? Much more likely.

I also agree that it would put buyers off and therefore devalue the nearby properties, especially that of the OP's friend. However rightly or wrongly this isn't a valid planning objection either.

TN1984

Gavin83 said:

Section62 said:

Gavin83 said:

What negative consequences?

Tastes differ, but I don't think this looks particularly attractive...




...and as a buyer would be put off by the visual impact alone.

The bank of control cabinets (with mechanical cooling) won't win any streetscene improvement awards either.

I agree, it's ugly. However this isn't necessarily a valid planning objection. You can object based on visual amenity but this may well not apply here, although it's hard to say without knowing the area. This would be unlikely to go up in a conservation area. On the side of the road in a normal neighbourhood? Much more likely.

I also agree that it would put buyers off and therefore devalue the nearby properties, especially that of the OP's friend. However rightly or wrongly this isn't a valid planning objection either.

I completely understand they are not valid planning objections, but that does not mean they are not negative consequences. 

TN1984

Section62 said:

TN1984 said:

Apparently it is to do with the fact they have agreed to maintain the grassy area - he's lived there 20 years and they never have, but he was told that is irrelevant to the point. Sorry if that doesn't actually make much sense, the information is pretty much third hand at this point.

It makes sense, but some of the details might have got lost along the way.  Adoption of roads only applies to cases where a new road has been built (by someone other than the highway authority) and the owner of the road wants the highway authority to 'adopt' it as a highway maintainable at public expense (aka 'Public Highway')

Other roads (the majority) have been highways maintainable at public expense since authorities took over the role of maintaining roads from the parish or landowners whose land the road crossed.

The land doesn't become highway because the highway authority have maintained it, the highway authority have to maintain it because it is a highway maintainable at public expense.

And if the road is 'public highway' the utility companies have rights to place their equipment in and on that land.

In this case the verge was deemed to be part of the highway and therefore fair game for the Telco to site a mast on.

TN1984 said:

Either way, although hopeless from a legal POV he did gather together reactions from a lot of neighbours and took them to the surveyor submitting the plans, who in turn went back to his employer. The surveyor called him back and confirmed they will be withdrawing the application and finding a different site. Obviously good news for him and hopefully they stick to that, though they just seemed to back down a bit too easily so I am still a bit worried for him it isn't over yet.

This does seem odd.

The Telco have already spent a lot of money on identifying the site, surveying it, and submitting a planning application.  They don't usually back down so quickly in response to objections.

Without knowing more I'd speculate they may be less certain about the ownership of the land than they were to start with.  It isn't uncommon for utility companies to think land is highway when it isn't.

But good news so far.

Indeed. I was very surprised when he told me. Apparently another neighbour rang the surveyor the next day and was also told the application was no longer going ahead, so it wasn't just him being told it. Maybe your speculation is correct in terms of the land ownership. I am really not sure. His worry at the moment is even if they have backed down now, they could be back again if no other sites can be identified.

Gavin83

TN1984 said:

Gavin83 said:

Section62 said:

Gavin83 said:

What negative consequences?

Tastes differ, but I don't think this looks particularly attractive...




...and as a buyer would be put off by the visual impact alone.

The bank of control cabinets (with mechanical cooling) won't win any streetscene improvement awards either.

I agree, it's ugly. However this isn't necessarily a valid planning objection. You can object based on visual amenity but this may well not apply here, although it's hard to say without knowing the area. This would be unlikely to go up in a conservation area. On the side of the road in a normal neighbourhood? Much more likely.

I also agree that it would put buyers off and therefore devalue the nearby properties, especially that of the OP's friend. However rightly or wrongly this isn't a valid planning objection either.

I completely understand they are not valid planning objections, but that does not mean they are not negative consequences. 

I was just answering your point asking if they had to take into account negative consequences to nearby housing. They do to an extent but that doesn't include something being ugly or reducing the neighbouring house prices. Maybe these should be taken into account but that's a different discussion. There is of course a bit of nimbyism going on here but then again I do sympathise, I wouldn't want this next to my house either.

TN1984 said:

Section62 said:

TN1984 said:

Apparently it is to do with the fact they have agreed to maintain the grassy area - he's lived there 20 years and they never have, but he was told that is irrelevant to the point. Sorry if that doesn't actually make much sense, the information is pretty much third hand at this point.

It makes sense, but some of the details might have got lost along the way.  Adoption of roads only applies to cases where a new road has been built (by someone other than the highway authority) and the owner of the road wants the highway authority to 'adopt' it as a highway maintainable at public expense (aka 'Public Highway')

Other roads (the majority) have been highways maintainable at public expense since authorities took over the role of maintaining roads from the parish or landowners whose land the road crossed.

The land doesn't become highway because the highway authority have maintained it, the highway authority have to maintain it because it is a highway maintainable at public expense.

And if the road is 'public highway' the utility companies have rights to place their equipment in and on that land.

In this case the verge was deemed to be part of the highway and therefore fair game for the Telco to site a mast on.

TN1984 said:

Either way, although hopeless from a legal POV he did gather together reactions from a lot of neighbours and took them to the surveyor submitting the plans, who in turn went back to his employer. The surveyor called him back and confirmed they will be withdrawing the application and finding a different site. Obviously good news for him and hopefully they stick to that, though they just seemed to back down a bit too easily so I am still a bit worried for him it isn't over yet.

This does seem odd.

The Telco have already spent a lot of money on identifying the site, surveying it, and submitting a planning application.  They don't usually back down so quickly in response to objections.

Without knowing more I'd speculate they may be less certain about the ownership of the land than they were to start with.  It isn't uncommon for utility companies to think land is highway when it isn't.

But good news so far.

Indeed. I was very surprised when he told me. Apparently another neighbour rang the surveyor the next day and was also told the application was no longer going ahead, so it wasn't just him being told it. Maybe your speculation is correct in terms of the land ownership. I am really not sure. His worry at the moment is even if they have backed down now, they could be back again if no other sites can be identified.

It is a risk but there's little point in him worrying about it.

As others have pointed out they did back down extremely easy and that is quite unusual. Maybe they are genuinely concerned about land ownership. Maybe they had a number of suitable sites and thought they'd see who complains the loudest in order to eliminate. Maybe they are courteous after all. However if they can't find another suitable site they may have no option but to revisit.

The only real way to fully mitigate this is to sell the property ASAP and get out before any decision reversal is made. However I'm assuming your friend isn't in a hurry to sell and of course the costs of moving could be more than the potential loss in value.