Thanet council is seeking legal advice after mobile phone and broadband firm MBNL, jointly owned by EE and Three, served notices on both the council and Westgate Community Centre trustees in a tussle over siting a temporary phone mast.
In April plans for a 20m telecoms mast to be installed on the corner of St Saviour’s C of E Juniors playing field were refused by the Department for Education.
The controversial plans drew opposition from the school. parents, councillors and Westgate-on-Sea Cricket Club which uses the field.
Last year the decision was challenged by residents who said it was not lawful because Thanet council wrongly stated the site is not in the Westgate Conservation Area. However, Thanet council said: “This decision is still valid and correct.”
Residents also wrote to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up to ask him to quash the permission.
In February MBNL approached the council over gaining an 18 month licence to site a temporary mast on land at Lymington Road playing field. To do this access across the community centre car park is required.
Thanet council attempted to bring about agreement with Westgate Community Centre for the access but the centre did not wish to comply – meaning MBNL now has the option of going to court to impose a Code Agreement, on both the council and WCC.
A concerned Westgate resident says he became aware of the temporary site plan after receiving minutes from a meeting held in June between Thanet council’s Interim Estates Surveyor and Westgate-on-Sea Community Centre Association Committee.
He said he was concerned that the minutes referred to “keeping quiet on the proposed mast…(to)… enable TDC to be able to manage the press and not be on the back foot.”
According to the minutes, after the lease refusal by the DofE the mobile company looked at between 4 to 6 temporary sites and also the possibility of an appeal against refusal at the St Saviour’s site.
Planning permission does not need to be obtained for a ‘temporary’ installation. ‘Emergency’ rights are given to operators where service is disrupted in an area and they need to replace that coverage.
The Westgate resident said: “I strongly feel there is no “emergency” other than the mobile operators concern that they may lose customers to other providers. I switched from EE to Virgin (O2) and receive adequate signal throughout Westgate now.”
Council leader Rick Everitt responded to the resident’s concerns, saying the temporary mast would be for “addressing poor / lack of signal issues.”
He added: “The operator’s legal advisors have now served notices on both TDC and the community centre trustees which give 28 days to respond and confirm if they are prepared to enter into a Code Agreement. If a consensual agreement is not possible, then the operator has statutory powers to apply to court to impose the agreement at any time after the 28 days have expired.
“I note (the) scepticism about the 18-month period and the nature of the “emergency”. The council is in the process of instructing lawyers to seek advice on the matter, but should it try to mount a challenge against the mast in court then potentially it would be exposed to the risk of the operator’s legal costs being awarded against it, as well as the need to cover its own costs. Whether this risk can be justified would obviously depend on that advice.”
MBNL has been asked for comment.
