Enfield Council 2 Vodafone 0

Hi
Just to let you know the second application for a Vodafone mast has been rejected.
Merry Xmas

New Mobile Mast application

So I chatted to Terry Smith and he's going to look into this latest application for us.

Basically the land is now council-owned (after the previous attempt at a sale was stopped) and so according to Terry the application is pretty much doomed to failure.

I say 'pretty much' because although Terry says that the Toriy councillors will reject the application out of hand the opposition may vote for it and if on the night not enough Tory councillors turn-up it could prove awkward. However Terry did say that such a manouvre would be an odd way for the opposition to win the hearts and minds of the general public so although technically feasible its unlikely.

Sadly there is nothing stopping these buggers from re-applying and the council is duty bound to issue notices to those in the vicinity of the proposed monstrosity. Unfortunately we are living in a high area which is why it's proving so popular for mobile phone masts. So it looks like we are going to have to adapt to regularly keeping an eye out for such applications and always, always notify the relevant authorities of our insistence that mobile masts must not be placed near residential areas.

For now Terry says hold-off from any further complaints, he will dig up all the information he can and get back to me over the coming week.

Telephone mast - AGAIN!

I do not bloody believe it, Vodafone are applying yet again for a mast at the exact same spot....Jeeez.
I'll try and contact Terry and will write back what I find out.
Merry Xmas Vodafone....

Telephone mast update

Hi
So here is the latest.

First, I suggest that everyone against a 13.4 metre high Mobile Telephone mast pumping out high intensity 3g radiation being placed at the bottom of Mayfield Avenue should in the first instance write your objection to:

Mr D Glover
Assistent Director, Planning and Transportation
PO Box 53
Civic Centre
Silver Street
Enfield
Middlesex
EN1 3XE
Ref: PA/05/0002
APPLICANT: Vodafone
Site opposite, 55, HIGH STREET, LONDON N14 6EB
Installation of a telecommunications monopole to a maximum of 13.4 metres (including antennae) with equipment cabinet at base.

Second, at the last local forum I had a chat with both Terry Smith and Edward Smith concerning this mast application and expressed my deep concern.

On my behalf Terry decided to dig further into the issue as both he and Edward stated that normally the Conservative controlled council would be against the siting of such a mast in residential areas.

Terry discovered that the application had been withdrawn "on a technicality" but felt it would be re-submitted. Both of us were suspicious of why it had been withdrawn in the first place and Terry investigated further.

He found out the following:
1. The site in question is the small piece of open land opposite the auction room on the side of the road where the Woolpack pub is.
2. Vodafone identified the land as a "good" spot and applied.
3. They were then informed that as the land was council owned the application was unlikely to succeed.
4. Somehow they were then tipped off that the Planning office had earmarked that particular piece of land to be disposed of, ie sold to a private concern.
5. Rather than have their application refused Vodafone decided to withdraw their application and wait for the land to be sold and then re-apply after negotiating with the new owner.

If the disposal had happened the councils ability to refuse the application would have been seriously diluted as national policy is to accept such applications unless there is a sufficiently strong public objection.

Terry was annoyed that the disposal proposal had slipped through with minimum notice and to cut a long story short, he raised the issue with a few high ranking individuals, pointing out the residential location, already existing complaints (yours truly and others (thankyou!) ) and upcoming elections as reasons enough to kill the disposal proposal which was earmarked to be rubber stamped at a council meeting on the 15th of this month.

Terry now tells me that the disposal has been stopped and so the land remains council property and therefore any re-submission of the original Vodafone application will be refused.

This is great news and Terry is a bloody star. However, I still suggest that as everything I have just said is unofficial, if you are against this you write an objection as soon as possible to Mr Glover.
cheers
Anthony

Telephone Mast

Hi
Just got a letter from the council referring to a planning application for a telephone mast opposite 55 High Street. We have 14 days apparantly to lodge a complaint. If anyone is still looking at this site (and i'd understand if noone is as I've had to give up updating it) then I suggest we get writing quickly.
Reasons:
1. Its going to be 13 metres high, so will be an eyesore
2. Its in the boundaries of a conservation area
3. Its close to family homes with children who will be subjected to intense Pulse radiation every moment of every day for those that live near it (Mayfield and the Meadway) and those who walk past it every day to for example Walker school which is also in its vicinity)
4. As I say, its close to Walker Primary school

If having a building site at the bottom of Mayfield was not bad enough, now this...sheesh.

An apology + plea for help

So as you have all no doubt noticed, this site has been deep frozen since July. The problem is one of time, or rather lack of it. I am really sorry that I have been unable to give this site and indeed the neighbourhood watch program the attention it really deserves, but unfortunately my own work has kind of taken over my life.

However there is so much going on, particularly with the forthcoming CPZ (why should residents with offstreet parking need to pay for a permit??) and the new development at Prudens close, not to mention the recent knife attacks in nearby Wood green & Edmonton that we really do need an active Blagdens Lane-NHW.

The local authorities, local police etc. all work best when they have ONE single point of contact to work through that they can build a relationship with. When they get inundated with queries they without fail fall back to an official stance of minimal information. Get one person to develop a strong relationship with key contacts inside however and invariably useful information can flow.

So, what we need is:
1. Someone willing to be that point of contact,
2. Someone willing to be conduit through which information flows,
3. Someone willing to attend local meetings,
4. Someone willing to host quarterly NHW meetings for local residents,
5. Someone willing to be our representative, take our concerns and run with them.

I am more than happy to support that person by maintaining this site, taking the information they want to distribute and posting it and also preparing and printing a regular newsletter. I can also attend the odd meetings as required and help establish links with other NHW sites, such as Southgate Green. All this I can do, but I just can't be the Head.

If you think you could be that person or know someone who you think fits the bill, please let me know by sending me an email (I have re-activated the Blagdenslanewatch email) or posting a comment at the bottom of this message.

Apologies once again but I hope through this exercise we can resurrect our NHW and make it a stronger and more stable entity than recently.

Kindest regards
Anthony Newstead

Trees in Mayfield Avenue

A Mr Gary Barnes appeared to talk about tree strategy in the Borough. He said that since a groundbreaking case in Westminster a couple of years ago councils are held fully liable for any tree or any part of a tree that can be proved to have resulted in – or contributed to – subsidence. The council are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on subsidence claims as a result of this.

Due to this situation if they get wind of any tree that looks like it is causing subsidence or has the potential to do so the council will remove it immediately without any consultation, save to say that it will be happening. However he did say that in such a situation the council has a policy of a one-for-one replacement, with a new tree.

It is for the potential exposure to subsidence claims that the council refuses to accept any requests for Tree preservation orders.

In the case of the tree at No.41 Mayfield avenue an application for removal for off-street parking was initially refused. However the residents then highlighted that the tree was dangerously leaning. The council tree surgeon Mr Alex Campbell inspected the tree and while confirming that it was healthy concurred that there was a future potential danger of it falling down and so the tree was felled. I have the report for those interested in reviewing it.

I chatted to Gary at the tail end of last week and he confirmed this story and said that a new tree would be planted but only during the latter of this year as it was pointless planting one during the summer months (I’m not a gardener, is this true?). He also said he would ask Alex to check on the other gaps in the street with a view to planting further trees and in the report he sent me Alex does talk about re-planting the gap on the opposite side of the road (40-42?) which was caused by a previous tree that was blown down during a storm.

While I am sympathetic to the council’s nervousness to exposure to huge claims there is a flaw here. Basically we have no way of challenging the findings of Alex Campbell. If he says the tree must come down then Gary – his boss – will invariably pass it for approval. Technically therefore Alex can be compromised in his decision-making by external forces and the local residents are screwed. I’m not saying this happens but is it not a coincidence that it was only when No. 41’s original application was refused that it was suddenly “discovered” that the tree was dangerous anyway? Also, with regards to the forthcoming Acton housing development, what’s to stop a truck “accidentally” ramming a tree to force Gary’s hand?

I think we need to investigate this further, seek an acceptance that we must be able to challenge the tree surgeons report as necessary and try and apply for tree preservation orders for certain key trees, such as the one in the middle of the roundabout at Mayfield.

I’m open to views here. I am aware that Helen Orpe has already made some moves by firing off questions to Gary etc. some of which have probably been answered here and I know that Benz Kotzen has had some dealings already with Alex Campbell re: a major tree in Pruden Close due for felling. Maybe we should arrange a get-together to discuss this further?
Anthony