Flaybrick Decision

We would like to draw the Planning Inspectors attention to the Flaybrick Appeal Decision of October 2001, Appeal Ref: APP/W4325/E/01/1065224 and Ref: APP/W4325/A/01/1065225. A copy of which should be enclosed with this letter.

We, the residents of this area, feel that the foregoing is the most accurate observation of a situation that could be possible written, and we ask that the many images of the Tower from our comprehensive website

should be entered as a crucial part of our argument why our quite outstanding water tower should be treated to exactly the same consideration. It can be seen in the most recent attempt by BT that every word about the Flaybrick water tower should, in all fairness, be applied to our case.

The Flaybrick decision is a remarkably similar case to the current Orange appeal. The Flaybrick water tower is the nearest water tower to the Gorsehill Tower, lying only 3 miles away, Grade II listed, made of similar materials and of comparable age and style. Indeed even the mobile phone application was similar with Vodaphone wanting to install 6 face mounted, colour-coded antennae on the Flaybrick Tower.

I would like to highlight some of the points made by the inspector in that case:

• Points 13, 14 and 15

  ``Consequently, I am not satisfied that it would practical to blend each individual antennae with the complex patina of the weathered stone background using paint alone. As a finished surface, paint would not have the same visual qualities as old red sandstone. It would reflect rather than absorb the light in a quite different way to dressed stone, particularly when wet, and it would be liable to weather differently over time.

  Nor would painting be able camouflage the 3-dimensional forms of the antennae themselves. The introduction of the 3 pairs of vertical antennae, fixed proud of the stonework within the recesses, would appear quite alien to the architectural composition of the listed tower. Located at the centre of the 3 blind arched recesses, the pairs of antennae would be angled against the stone wall on brackets in order to cover each sector of the area. Their form and appearance would be quite visible as unsympathetic elements in the formal architectural facade of the tower.''

  Figure 9 shows how the colour of the tower varies in differing light conditions, unlike the antennae on it. The remarkable way that the local sandstone catches the light inspired Sir Giles Gilbert Scott to build the nearby Liverpool Anglican Cathedral from it.

  Even the new BT antennae² which were only installed a few weeks ago, totally fail to match the colour of the sandstone even in dry, clear weather.

  Figure 3: Detail of existing Orange equipment showing poor state of the paintwork due to weathering.

  On a more practical note, the Water Tower is on high ground facing the Irish Sea where it subject to strong winds and winter storms. These blow salty, sand filled air which strips paint off any surface, demonstrating that paint cannot be regarded as a long term solution to disguising equipment. Figure 3 shows how easily the disguising paint flakes off.

• Point 16.

  ``As none of these alterations would harmonise with the classical composition of the listed building. I conclude that the installation of these antennae would fail to preserve its character and its features of special architectural and historic interest. ''

  We can compare the classical composition of Figure 7 to the industrial mess of Figure 8 to confirm his conclusions given in point 16.
• Point 20 emphasises the conclusion of the previous section:

  ``20. The presence of the redundant VHF radio aerial on the top of the water tank does not establish a precedent for further telecommunications equipment to be sited on the Water Tower... ''

As part of his site inspection, the Planning Inspector visited the Gorsehill Water Tower and it convinced him of the folly of allowing telecommunications equipment on the Flaybrick Water Tower.

The Wirral Council planning committee have stated that there were mistakes made in 1989 and 1993 when the first antennae were approved. Yet, as has been argued here, these mistakes should not be regarded as permanent nor should they be repeated. The transience of mobile phone technology means that within a few years the telecommunications equipment will be obsolete and should be removed. That way we may return the tower to its full glory as shown by Figure 7. Alternatively, we ignore all the reasons for listed building consent, allow any junk to be attached to the tower and quickly arrive at the state of Figure 8.