Effect on Appearance of Building

The replacement of 6 panel antennae and the addition of 3 600mm microwave dishes will increase the number of antennae on the tower to 18. However, when other companies have applied to increase antennae numbers, the Planning Committee (with the full and total support of the local community) have refused such applications, stating quite categorically that ``enough is enough''.

A major concern of the local residents is that if this particular development is allowed to proceed, it will set the stage for yet further development. Phone mast applications are a special case of planning. Applying to build a house will result in 1 house being built. Yet there seems no limit to the number of mobile phone mast applications that can be made. As we have already mentioned, in the past 3 years there have been 17 applications made for mobile phone masts on the Tower. Yet there seems to be no sign of these applications abating and we currently know of:

Hutchinson 3G

Application nos. 20027325 and 20027271 for 3 antennae and 2 600mm dishes were turned down, but are likely to be subject to appeal.

T-Mobile

In a letter to TAG dated 14th March, T-Mobile announced they are intending to submit an application 4 antennae on the Tower.

O2

Planning application 20035213 for 3 fourstack antennae and 1 GPS antenna on nearby Portland Court was turned down by the planning committee on Thursday 10upthApril, after being recommended for refusal by the planning office. Since BT already have antennae on Tower it would be technically easy for them to move to the Tower.

Orange

This appealed application allows for significant expansion of equipment (100amp power supply) and explicitly mentions 6 antennae in future (See Figure 6 and in particular the ``Final Antenna Key'' therein)

We strongly believe that with the proposed internal changes in the Water Tower, such as changing from single phase to a 3 phase electrical supply, the addition of 6 air-conditioning units, the expansion of cable glands and antennae feeder trays are simply setting up the infrastructure for the six additional antennae quite clearly referred to in their drawings.

All these applications mean that there may well be 19 extra masts on the tower within a year. Figure 8 shows what the tower may well look like if these applications are passed. This image uses the published plans from the above mobile phone companies to give an accurate impression of the number and type of antennae that will probably be installed in the next year. Even when the antennae are ``colour coded to match the stonework of the building'' they fail to match the architecture.

We recognise that the planning inspector only interprets the law as it stands, but he must appreciate that with another appeal and two more applications highly likely, this decision will set a strong precedent. Having a planning inspector's decision which does not state a limit to the number of phone masts on the tower will tie the hands of the local planning committee. Any future applicant will simply have to quote this appeal decision to have their application passed. So if this application is passed then the inspector will need to carefully consider the need to state a case by case basis for future decisions.

If this Orange appeal is passed showing that brown paint is sufficient to meet the listed building consent, then there will be no stopping mobile phone companies from plastering the tower with their antennae.

However all is not lost for the Water Tower. Phone mast applications are special in a second way. The rapid progress of telecommunications technology means that equipment installed less than 10 years ago is now redundant. Orange's own application shows that two of the three 600mm dishes are unused. Yet all past planning decisions have failed to require redundant equipment to be removed as it falls out of use.

The equipment is useless, but the application continues in perpetuity, so it is kept on the tower as a ``placeholder''. They cannot be forced to remove the inoperative equipment, but it is left on the tower so it can be traded in when they need to update.

This rapid progress of technology and rapid rate of applications means that the tower is in constant flux. Just because it is covered in antennae now, it should not be regarded as always having to be like that. Any application must be regarded as a new application for new antennae on the Tower.

The Wirral Borough Solicitor letter CH/CG PD/P8/1 of the 14th August 2002 confirms this point of view:
``In my view BT or other telecommunications operators have no special status as sitting tenants...''