Anger as mast deal collapses
10:10am Wednesday 10th October 2007
Comments (1)NEIGHBOURS were outraged when plans for a large mobile phone mast in Clarence Park to avoid the need for others in residential streets were thrown out last night.
The cabinet of St Albans District Council, as predicted by the Review, reversed an earlier decision to allow the mast next to the football ground.
Andrew Apps of Gurney Court Road, who has led a campaign to allow the Orange mast, told the Review: "It is completely outrageous.
"I am extremely disappointed - the council have been leading us up the garden path for five years."
Orange has said that if the Clarence Park mast is refused it will install about ten others around Marshalswick, including a particularly controversial one in Gurney Court Road.
Residents argue this would be an eyesore, and fear the health impact of masts so close to their front doors.
The Clarence Park mast had already been given planning permission, but last night the cabinet discussed the proposed deal in their role as park trustees.
In a rare public show of disunity, the Lib Dem cabinet split, with Robert Donald and Melvyn Teare voting to press on with the plan.
But other members, following legal advice, said it was beset by problems.
As trustees, they were not allowed to consider the benefit to areas outside the park, and they heard the annual rent offered by Orange had fallen to only £3,500.
Other problems included possible objections from the Charity Commission, and the precedent set to rival mobile phone companies which have already said they would like masts in Clarence Park.
The majority of the cabinet concluded that a large mast might deter people from using the park, and the deal should be scrapped.
In this section
- Brookmans Park body indentified as Janet Read
- Swine flu spirals in county's schools
- Harpenden Road crash victim dies in hospital
- Disabled Harpenden pervert's foot-fetish
- Who pays for MPs birthday cards?
- Child sex abuse images found on computer
- "A miserable failure"
- An evening with celebrities to be won
- Pupils return to school after swine flu scare
- 'Handful' of suspected swine flu cases at Harpenden school
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Martin Thornhill of St Albans Taxpayers Alliance, St Albans says...
9:05pm Wed 10 Oct 07
Hold on, what's going on here?
The Cabinet has (or should have) competence on matters such as the Charity Commission's reaction and precedents of the deal. The Trustees have a narrower scope and cannot consider extra-park matters, yet breached such duty by considering precisely extra-park matters that previously did not bother the Cabinet!!
And these people are the SAME PEOPLE, divided only by an artificial legal structure. What happened in between these two decisions? Did these people lie to eachother? Can the Trustees sue the Cabinet? Can the Cabinet sue the Trustees? Can the taxpayer sue both of them?!
The fact that they have also wasted an offer of cash from the mast provider is inexcusable.
Would the Cabinet and Trustees write a public letter to explain their decision-making processes and set out the evidence they received to some to their conclusions in both cases? I think the taxpayers deserves a credible explanation that can stand up to profession and legal scrutiny.
Why does this sounds like a delicately engineered way of wasting taxpayers money? Can we afford to trust this Cabinet?