Hutchinson 3G have put in a new application for Ruddlesway, reducing the mast by 3 metres and claiming by so doing they have “robustly addressed” the councils decision to refuse 21/01269 which had over 50 residents’ objections!
Any comments on the new application need to be submitted by the 11th August.
- Go here and register to submit a comment online, then search 21/02145.
- email email@example.com quoting reference 21/02145.
- or post a letter to Planning Department, RBWM, Town Hall, St Ives Road, Maidenhead. SL6 1RF and include the reference 21/02145/TLDTT
I guess the applications will keep on coming and we just have to push back on those that are not in the appropriate location. The telcos are well versed in the planning process so it was reassuring that they didn’t take the previous application further, to the inspector, which says to me they felt it would be refused.
My Objection posted 19th July 2021
I would like to register my objection to the recent planning application 21/02145 for a 5G Mast on Ruddlesway.
Please consider my objections to 21/01269 in conjunction with this objection as in their own words they say, application 21/02145 is the same as application 21/01269 which was refused on a number of grounds and this revised application does not address those issues simply by reducing the pole by 3m.
In fact, the application is poorer than the first in relation to visual clutter distracting drivers, impacting pedestrian safety, as they plan on installing the equipment right next to the pavement which will also make it even more difficult for future improvements to the footpath and roundabout junction.
The proposal contravenes the following planning regulations and should be refused:
RBWM Local Plan – DG1, TEL1, T5, N6
The look and feel of an area is very important to the planning process and is mentioned more than once in planning documents. Visually, these 5G masts are in complete contrast to the local area and do not add to the view. They cause clutter, their height and size creating a potential distraction to drivers, making it unsafe for other drivers and pedestrians. The proposed footprint could cause a detrimental impact to the ecological systems in the area and there needs to be a minimal 3m radial root protection area as detailed by the tree officer in 21/01269.
Windsor Neighbourhood Plan – OS.01, DES.01
The latest WNP designates this area specifically as Local Green Space and so it needs to be shown the same respect as green belt. SInce there are no special circumstances to position a 5G Mast on this site it should be refused. The design is not in keeping with the Laing Estate, a residential area of mainly detached and semi-detached family housing.
National Planning Policy Framework 13, 15
It is recommended that the number of telecom poles in an area is kept to a minimum. With a telecom mast on the industrial estate nearby then this pole should apply to be on that space. It should not be looking to impact on the local ecology and biodiversity, taking away from the natural systems that already exist.
Had the first application had merit then surely they would have taken it to the Inspector?
I don’t believe this application is significantly different to the first and certainly does not address the issues above and mentioned in previous objections.
I do hope that all those residents previously objecting to 21/01269 have been notified of the new application 21/02145. If not then it is a loophole in planning that needs to be addressed, if not at a national level, at a local one to ensure open and transparent governance.