July 16 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

Recently I read an alarming report from the BBC concerning mobile
phone masts which were erected after blunders by councils in
England.

Legislation allows mobile phone companies to assume masts below 15m
in height have been given planning approval if they do not hear in
writing from a council within 56 days. The council is legally
obliged to write to the companies within the given time, outlining
whether the mast actually needs prior approval and whether or not
the council objects to its siting and appearance.

On 68 occasions, councils in southern England have fallen foul of a
legal loophole allowing masts to be approved if an operator is not
sent an answer within that set time limit. In 39 of those cases,
the council had intended to object to the application.

A catalogue of errors has been uncovered across southern England by
the BBC. They include decisions being sent by second-class mail
instead of first, letters being given the wrong date-stamp,
officers calculating the time period incorrectly, the wrong
decision notices being sent out and officers forgetting to state
clearly enough that the application had actually been refused. This
concerns this correspondent greatly.

I am therefore requesting that your council provides me with a full
disclosure on issues relating to this most serious matter under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. I request the following specific
information:

How many instances (if at all) did your council allow masts to be
approved because an operator was not sent an answer within that set
time limit

Full details in relation to each instance (if any) as mentioned in
part one, including the size, height, and location of each mast,
the identity of the operator, and why each operator was not sent an
answer within the set time limit

Whether the council intended to object to each mast referred to in
part two

This Act established a legal right of access to information held by
public bodies and I believe the full disclosure of such material is
in the public interest and is essential for maintaining public
confidence and accountability in our local services.

I would therefore request a full disclosure in line with the
aforementioned act, within the statutory 20 day limit.

Sincerely, Adrian

Your message:
From: [FOI #1185 email]
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Masts

Could not be delivered because of

Server refused mail at END OF DATA - 550 5.7.1 Requested action not taken: message refused

The following recipients were affected:
[Dungannon District Council request email]

Additional Information
======================
Original Sender: <[FOI #1185 email]>
Sender-MTA: <82.111.230.212>
Reporting-MTA: <dst1crs017.dungannon.gov.uk.local>
MessageName: <B487f7e930000.000000000001.0001.mml>
Last-Attempt-Date: <18:17:08 Thu, 17 July 2008>

I am currently out of the office to Monday 21 July 2008 if urgent contact [email address]

show quoted sections

I acknowledge receipt of your email.

Councils in Northern Ireland do not have statutory responsibility for planning issues.

Department of the Environment Planning Service, Omagh Division is the responsible authority for planning in this area.

Email [email address]

Website: www.planningni.gov.uk

Hope this is helpful and answers your request for information.

Gladys Smith

Council Business Manager

Tel: 028 8772 0303

Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council

Comhairle Dhún Geanainn agus Thír Eoghain Theas

Rathgannon Sooth Owenslann Burgh Cooncil

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

show quoted sections