Agenda item

(Finance & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-021-2010/11).

(1)        That, provided they have not moved home, those residents who originally objected to the application for a determination as to whether prior approval was required for the erection of a mobile phone mast be paid a further and final sum of £250 as compensation;

(2)        That the residents of the properties marked on the map attached at Appendix 1 of the report be also offered compensation in the sum of £250, subject to the following conditions:

(a)        they were resident in their property when the mast was erected;

(b)        they have not moved from their home since the mast was erected; and

(c)        they have not previously received compensation from the Council in respect of this matter; and

(3)        That the compensation offered be without prejudice and as an apology for the failure of the Council to deal with the application for the mast in a timely manner.

The Leader of the Council presented a report upon the claim for compensation by local residents following the erection of a telecoms mast in Honey Lane. Waltham Abbey.

The Leader reminded the Cabinet that the Council failed to decide upon, in 2006, an application for a determination as to whether prior approval was required for the erection of a mobile phone mast.  The consequence of the decision was that the mast gained deemed planning permission and was subsequently erected despite the Council raising objections to its siting and design. The lawfulness of the mast and options for using planning enforcement powers to seek its removal had been explored and, following consideration of a report on 4 August 2009, the District Development Control Committee agreed there was no reasonable prospect of securing a better solution on the ground.

The Leader stated that the residents who had originally objected to the mast had been paid £250 each as a goodwill gesture by the Council prior to the District Development Control Committee’s decision. Members were now requested to consider whether any further compensation should be paid to residents for the Council’s failure to issue a timely decision on the original prior approval application and the consequences which arose from that failure. Various options for compensation had been discussed and the preferred option of Officers had been recommended.

The Portfolio Holder for Operation Planning & Transport, who represented the High Beach ward in Waltham Abbey, observed that the report was only proposing to compensate those residents who had originally objected to the Council about the erection of the mast, not the residents who either did not object or who objected through other channels but were still affected. It was felt to be reasonable to offer compensation of £250 to all the affected residents, i.e. the 71 properties highlighted on the map attached to the report.

The Director for Planning & Economic Development stated that he had experience of losing planning appeals against mobile phone masts, as the operators had considerable powers to erect such masts. The Council’s procedures had since been reviewed and the Director apologised for those residents that had been affected. The Director of Corporate Support Services reminded the Cabinet that the Council would not be accepting liability, the compensation would be an apology to residents for failing to deal with the application in a timely manner.

The Cabinet agreed to compensate the other affected residents, from the 71 properties highlighted in the report, provided that they were in residence when the mast was erected, they had not moved from their home since the mast was erected, and they had not previously received any compensation from the Council in respect of this matter.

Decision:

(1)        That, provided they have not moved home, those residents who originally objected to the application for a determination as to whether prior approval was required for the erection of a mobile phone mast be paid a further and final sum of £250 as compensation;

(2)        That the residents of the properties marked on the map attached at Appendix 1 of the report be also offered compensation in the sum of £250, subject to the following conditions:

(a)        they were resident in their property when the mast was erected;

(b)        they have not moved from their home since the mast was erected; and

(c)        they have not previously received compensation from the Council in respect of this matter; and

(3)        That the compensation offered be without prejudice and as an apology for the failure of the Council to deal with the application for the mast in a timely manner.

Reasons for Decision:

Although it was highly likely a mobile phone mast would have been erected within the vicinity of the existing mast, the visual amenities of residents were nevertheless harmed by the existing mast.  That mast was lawfully erected as a consequence of the Council’s failure to make a timely decision on the application for a determination as to whether prior approval was required for the erection of the mast and it was not expedient to take action to secure its removal.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To give no compensation.

To compensate the residents who originally objected to the application for a prior approval determination on the basis of a possible loss of property value.

To compensate all those who had either signed a petition or submitted individual letters complaining about the Council’s failure to meet the 56 day deadline and/or calling for the removal of the mast by a fixed sum.

To compensate on an alternative basis decided by Members.