Mast must come down
A HOUSEHOLDER is being forced to take down a radio mast from the front of a terraced house in Wisbech. Planners have been given permission to start legal proceedings to make sure the mast is removed from the house in Myles Way. Fenland District Council s
A HOUSEHOLDER is being forced to take down a radio mast from the front of a terraced house in Wisbech.
Planners have been given permission to start legal proceedings to make sure the mast is removed from the house in Myles Way.
Fenland District Council says if the mast had been sited at the back of the property and not displayed above the ridge of the house, then planning permission would not have been needed.
The saga occupied the time of council officers for more than a year.
You may also want to watch:
* February 2007 the council was asked whether planning permission was needed to erect a base-station aerial which would be attached vertically to the front of the property and its height extended above the ridge height.
* March 2007 the council wrote to the owners telling them that on the information supplied planning permission would be needed.
- 1 Businessman slams council’s coronavirus grants in explosive live rant
- 2 Woman, 78, suffers horrific injuries after e-scooter hit-and-run
- 3 £100k homes scrapped 'with almost immediate effect' says Mayor
- 4 Murder suspect is victim's son
- 5 Fleeing heroin dealer rams police car but they get him in the end
- 6 Two men with links to Cottenham on 'most wanted' list
- 7 Fly-tipped sofa second reported incident this week
- 8 Hairdressing student is best of 1,000 after winning national competition
- 9 'Police repeatedly failed me' over noisy neighbour saga, claims resident
- 10 Pervert filmed himself having sex with girl, 14, and then shared video online
* April 2007 a council officer visited the property and noted that a whip aerial was attached vertically to the front of the house and was higher than the ridge.
* April 2007 the council wrote to the owner/occupier requesting either removal of the aerial or the submission of a planning application.
* May 2007 the council received a planning application. The application was found to be invalid and was returned with a covering letter outlining the information needed to validate it.
* September 2007 a site visit by the council showed the aerial had not been removed.
A letter was sent advised that failure to remove the aerial was likely to result in the council seeking authorisation to start formal enforcement action.
Officers told the council: "It appears the owner/occupier of the premises has no intention of fully complying with the council's requests and in view of the amount of time already taken by officers seeking to resolve this matter it is now considered appropriate to commence formal enforcement proceedings.