Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Junction of Nightingale/Bounds Green Roads - Planning App for a grotesque and massive 18m Telecom mast plus metal boxes.
"It is being sited on a green area and this will be dug up and disturbed. This is not dead space. It is environmentally important that we do not lose verges and green spaces which not only enhance our environment but allow diversity of plants and insect. We need these green spaces we do not need them to be nibbled away by supposed 'Technological Advances" We have all learnt over the past few months the value of living in an area that offers many green areas in which to sit, play and walk. The houses beside this installation will be completely blighted and it adds nothing to the area which is reeling from excess traffic."
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
They have lots already in Finsbury Park. Picture below of Alexandra House as an example
-
Permalink Reply by JJ B on
-
There are loads of these going in to replace existinhg 4 G antennae.
Many are on council/public, but also private buildings and I have no doubt that the Council also benefits from the income.
They are ugly but their visual impact is not same as putting them down to tower into people's visual space (Wimbourne & Bradwater Rd) and to take up scarece pavemet width.
They need to find a better way of doing this...see the bus stop phoyto I've posted elewher ein this discussion.
I rememeber seeing in the Algarve on my 1st visit there in 2000 (20 YEARS AGO!!!!) a tree that looked somewhat odd. It was a phone mast & antenna.
So the phone utilities need to get together with affected communities and come up with acceptable ways in which to implement the antenna roll out.
-
-
Would you still be happy with TV transmitted in 405 lines? If we want to take advantage of technology it has to be made available in some way. I’m glad your mobile phone and internet are fine but I think the development is to benefit more people than you.
-
-
Other countries are putting 5G antennae up. THey DO NOT look like this.
Of course this would mean a higher cost.
And our own council's refusal for a similar ugliness on lovely Wimbourne Rd in Bruce Grove -TWICE refused
Some people argue on teh grounds of health and radio waves - that is a separate argument.
But these phone companies need to behave and have consideraton for the negative visual impact. There ARE ways of installing the network without the ugliness. DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT WE NEED THE TECHNOLOGY for COVID times. It is nonsense!
See the size of this one on a bus stop in France.
-
-
I think of you read the government letter to local authorities (which is in the list of attached documents for the applications) it pretty clear than any refusal will be overturned by the Secretary of State anyway
Quote below
I hope you agree that we should work hand in hand to support the significant new investment
in digital infrastructure that can benefit our communities. With this in mind, Government will
give significant weight to the extent to which local authorities have adopted the principles
contained in our guidance when allocating funding for future DCMS projects aimed at
boosting investment in fibre or mobile networks.
-
-
They may try to overrule if the basis for refusal is claims of negative affects on health but as soon as they try and impose the uglinesses in Westminster or Wandsworth the jurspridence will mean that other coouncils will be able to say "no".
-
-
It doesn’t work like that. Telecoms applications are made with the expectation that they will receive consent and since planning laws changed in the summer of this year the expectation is that they will go ahead if a local authority “likes” them or not. I would imagine that the one refused in Bruce Grove will go to the Secretary of State who will simply overturn the council’s decision.
Have you ever wondered why we have completely useless modern public telephone booths cluttering up the footpath that are used only to display advertising? Same rules.
Telecoms equipment is all over the west end - try looking up to the top of tall buildings.
-
-
In what way have the planning rules changed to force these things upon us?
I know that Haringey successfully resisted the advert-LED-screens (Inlink) masquerading as internet/telephone locations all along Tottenham Historic Corridor. They have apapeared elesewher in the borough.
Can you pls let me have the reference to the specific rules you refer to so we can prepare to combat these things.
I know that if I had one of these (like Wimbourne rd) forced upon my back yard I'd probably resort to extreme measures!
-
-
Also I don't have problems with them on rooftops as they are less visible.
However, the one proposed at Wimbourne was just quite frankly out of proportion for the streets in question. It was oppressive, especially when you consider that alternative versions could mitigate the ugliness they sought to impose on people.
And...I just do not think they (the Secretary of State) would get away with this behaviour in certain 'other places'.
-
-
It’s much cheaper to have them on top of tall buildings (if they are in the right place and the owner of the building will lease the space). I would imagine that the absence of tall buildings at this site is why they are proposing a far costlier solution, to erect a mast.
You can find policy legislation and guidance on the planning portal or ring the planning officer dealing with the case for information
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200136/policy_and_legislation
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Matz on
-
There are 2 x 14 storey blocks of council flats (including my own) within 500 yards of the proposed site, and a further two within a quarter of a mile that already have the necessary elevation
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I think you should be agitating for the demolition of the Council flats.
Much uglier than the proposed mast.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
