Issue - meetings

A petition has been received containing over 500 valid signatures stating the following:

 

We call on Cambridge City Council to prevent a 30 metre high phone mast from being erected on Jesus Green.

 

The petition organiser will be given 5 minutes to present the petition at the meeting and the petition will then be discussed by Councillors for a maximum of 15 minutes.

 

A petition had been received containing over 500 signatures stating the following:

 

We call on Cambridge City Council to prevent a 30 metre high phone mast from being erected on Jesus Green.

 

The Petition Organiser made the following points:

 

i.               Speaking on behalf of Jesus Green Association and citizens of Cambridge. 2100 people had signed petition against location of mast on Jesus Green.

ii.             Would speak to 3 areas; priorities, time frame and location.

iii.            An early mistake was made by not including provision for the mast in the initial project          plan for the apart hotel and Park Street Car Park redevelopment.

iv.           The current proposal to site the mast on Jess Green, was not a solution and must be reconsidered. It was necessary to put right what was a mistake in the first place.

v.             Questioned the council’s priorities; were they working for the people or were they a developer. Stated that it was unconscionable that the council appeared to be acting as a commercial entity, not a council for  the people. The proposal should not even be considered.

vi.           This was a problem for both the council and the mast providers. They needed to solve this issue together. The Council should not blame the mast company.

vii.          The Council stated that they were opposed to the mast being cited on Jesus Green but no action was being taken to prevent this.

viii.        The Council were claiming an emergency in order to place the mast on the park, however, the mast was functioning; there was no emergency. The argument was flawed.

ix.           The Council was in a lucky position as the car park contract had not been awarded, therefore there was no agreed schedule. The Council could therefore dictate the start date for demolition which dictated the need for the mast to be removed.

x.             It would show a total lack of accountability for the council to accept a contract which forced the removal of the mast, before a permanent location is found.

xi.           It was within the Council’s power to sort this out by ensuring there was time for this issue to be resolved.

xii.          It was an incorrect assumption that the mast needed to be moved in June this year. It was within the Council’s power to delay the mast removal until next year.

xiii.        Questioned why the mast should be located on Jesus Green when there were other locations to site it and the public and the mast operator did not want the mast on Jesus Green.

xiv.        It was insulting to state that the mast would only take up 0.1% of a total of 11.3ha. This missed the point that you would not let someone locate something that was ugly because it only took up a small amount of space.

xv.         The public would like to see what sites were being and had been considered. Asked the Council to involve the public to help make suggestions and help constructively towards a solution.

xvi.        The issue had been clumsily managed. The strength of public feeling was demonstrated by the number of people who had signed the petition.

xvii.      Asked the Council to take advantage of the year available and find a permanent location for the mast. Asked that the mast was not located on Jesus Green.

 

Councillors debated the issues raised for the allocated 15 minutes.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces made the following comments in response to the debate:

i.               Thanked the Petitioner for bringing the petition.

ii.             Expressed concerns that a mast could be located on Jesus Green even for a temporary basis.

iii.            There was no planning application for the mast.

iv.           The Council had been informed of an emergency notice to erect a mast, this was outside the normal planning process.

v.             It was not for the council to determine alternative sites for the location of communication systems. The Council had given due notice and it was for the telecoms company to find a new location.

vi.           The situation had changed since the submission of a petition. Park Street car park would be demolished in the autumn. This would be replaced with a new car park and an aparthotel. This was part of  plan to provide income to support the level of services in the city.  As a result the mast needs to be removed. The owners had made a prior notice application to site the mast on a nearby building which was refused due to the harm on the conservation area.

vii.          On December 8 an emergency temporary notice was lodged for a mast on Jesus Green. A petition regarding the mast was submitted to the Council.

viii.        No council can prevent a mast being erected on common land if the conditions set out in the national legislation mean a temporary mast is necessary. This applied to the City Council.

ix.           They did not want the mast and had been working with the Telecoms Company so that the Telecoms Company could make alternative provision for their services.

x.             Whilst did not want to see a mast on Jesus Green also did not want people cut off from the telephone network.  

xi.           Applicants had amended their plan and had submitted a new application 24 February 2021. Hoped that the application would be determined within 8 weeks and before dismantling the Park Street equipment so that there would be no need for a mast on Jesus Green.