Issue - meetings

        The Development Management Manager delivered his report.

        The Chair then invited Mr Andrew Mortimer to address the committee.

        Mr Mortimer opened by stating that he was speaking on behalf of a number of local residents.  He realised that we needed faster and more efficient telecommunications, but cited the refusal some years ago, of the mast application at the junction of Ridgeway and Courtlands Drive. 

        He asked if the consultation for this application was properly completed for all the adjacent roads, as he had been informed that this was not the case. 

        He went on to say that regrettably a number of gateway roads to Watford had buildings that he described as gruesome.  He compared these to the multiple masts and associated cabinets at the junction of Hempstead Road and Courtlands Drive. 

        He stated that although the health concerns were not eligible to be considered, he asked if the radiation from these masts was cumulative or exponential and reminded the committee that the drug Thalidomide was not considered dangerous until the appalling birth defects were realised. 

        Mr Mortimer accepted that the new 5G masts needed to be larger and taller, but asked what of the next generation of masts, will they be taller still?  He asked the committee to refuse the application and go back to the applicant and ask them to develop a mast that could be fitted to street lamps. 

        The Chair thanked Mr Mortimer and asked the Development Management Manager to comment on two areas, the refusal of the Ridgeway/Courtlands Drive application and the suggestion that the consultation was not complete. 

        Regarding the refusal of the historic application, the Development Management Manager stated that because it was some time ago, he could not recall exactly why it was refused, but pointed out that the field of telecommunications and wireless internet had moved on considerably, with considerable support and drive from central government. In fact this was to such an extent, that he felt any referral to this old application was no longer relevant. 

        The Development Management Manager stated that letters had been sent to between 35 and 45 nearby properties for each of the recent applications.  Normal planning procedures had been followed. 

        The Chair thanked the Development Management Manager and passed the matter to the committee for discussion.

        Concern was expressed that a Liquid Amber ‘show tree’, funded by local councillors and planted near the site, would be lost. 

        There was general concern about the number of masts at this site. The question was asked if this site had been chosen to avoid the Cassiobury Estate and the associated covenants.

        The Development Management Manager stated that he was unable to comment on this particular tree, but larger and more mature trees would normally be protected.  He pointed out that there were three masts within the Cassiobury Estate. 

        He was also asked if this site with its number of masts was unique in Watford. He pointed out that there were three masts on Hempstead Road at its junction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25