The OUTRAGE of the phone mast

The mast is finally finished and it looks horrendous as these pictures show below.

Adrian Andrew did not get back with further details as he promised so I have sent a further email to the councillors asking for their thoughts. I have also contacted Valerie Vaz MP for her thoughts as well and if she can intervene. If you want your say please use the contact details above and the comments.

15 thoughts on “The OUTRAGE of the phone mast

  1. It looks like a phone mast.
    Starving kids, car crashes, earthquakes are horrendous. This is a feature of modern life. I take it none of the objectors posses mobiles or benefit from mobile technology in any way?

    End of the world imminent, film at 11.

    Best wishes


  2. Bob, people accept we need them but the positioning is awful, like putting one on a corner of Brownhills high street.

    coverage here is actually good anyway

  3. There are several in the vacinity of Brownhills High Street, more in Walsall Wood. And?

    It’s not to increase coverage in the immediate area, that’s not how it works. Seems sensibly positioned to me.

    I think what you mean is ‘People need them, just not near us, oh no.’

    Got NIMBY much?

    Best wishes


  4. No, they refused a prior notification, that’s not the same thing. CHeck your planning rules.

    I can’t see any reason why it would be refused – it’s not a street or pavement hazard.

    I, for one, welcome our new microwave overlords. The 02 reception downhill there is crap.

    Best wishes


  5. Good news for walsall residents! Ask for planning permission, when it’s refused, pretend you did not recieve the letter and you can go ahead with your plans, they won’t follow it up because ‘legal action would be futile as the council cannot prove the operator received the notice within 56 days’ Simple. Or have I missunderstood the letter I have just received?

  6. It’s worth noting that the system doesn’t work like that in this case.

    The telecoms company, because it’s communications infrastructure, give notice that they’re going to construct the mast and build it to the council. The council then have a duty to object within a set time. Not objecting is deemed approval by default.

    Essential services, lamp-posts, telegraph poles and suchlike all work this way. The council apparently objected but clearly failed to use recorded delivery, which seems a bit daft.

    That aside – that is, the usual ability of Walsall to fail abysmally – can’t see what the issue is.

    Best wishes


  7. Diane, was that letter from the council or councillors ?

    as for the proof within 56 days surely a registered letter for a few pounds would suffice ?

  8. Walsall Council.

    You would think the company would be expected to check on the Council’s website. Why is the posting on the website not sufficient to prevent this outrage? Planning permission was refused and it was there for all to see.

    I saw it!

  9. Sorry the letter is on behalf of the Ward Councillors and it contains a press statatement from Walsall Council planning Chiefs. It is not signed.

  10. didn’t use recorded delivery?
    that’ll be the council’s idea of cutting costs;
    there are some officals who can’t tell the difference between price, cost and value.
    be honest, are you surprised?

  11. Martin, there has been a clear failure in the council to follow this up within the 56 days and ensure the operator understood the refusal.

    It is a shame the blame by the councillors was put ALL on the operator when internal processes at the council should be looked at.

  12. I’m still waiting for somebody to explain why on earth this isn’t suitable. Has the entirety of Pheasey dumped mobile technology and gone to tin cans on string? What’s so special about your area that requires all the disadvantages of mobile phone use to be stuck near somebody else?



  13. Dear Bob again ,The NRPB standards are digracefully high in this country compared to other countries in Europe and even USA. There are proven cancer clusters and other illnesses worlwide next to these things,and the WHO is even against siting in residential area.
    Is our health not more important than money and Vodafones profits?

Comments are closed.