 |
|||
 |
|||
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Phone mast proposed in Cuby to overcome A government appointed contractor, The Harlequin Group, has put forward plans for a new mobile phone mast just outside the village of Tregony in the parish of Cuby. The mast, if built, would be part of the Mobile Infrastructure Project (MIP). This is a £150m UK government funded project to correct a market failure in the provision of mobile phone coverage. The project forms part of the wider Broadband Delivery UK project for the Department for Culture Media and Sport aiming to reduce the digital divide. To qualify for this state aid, under EU law, the target areas have to have no mobile coverage whatsoever, so even an emergency call could not be placed from a mobile phone. These areas without coverage, for the purpose of MIP, are known as ‘Not Spots’ which are 100m x 100m tiles. This site would cover a number of ‘Not Spots’, thereby greatly improving the local communities connectivity. The Harlequin Group has submitted a pre-application advice proposal to Cornwall Council with the intention of submitting a full planning application in due course. The mast would be 25 metres high and it would host the four main mobile network operators. This would mean that residents would have a choice of provider to fit in with their own preferences. Details of the proposal can be viewed on the Cornwall Council planning portal at Cuby Phone Mast. No doubt this proposal will be welcomed by some residents. Others, however, may have their reservations about more infrastructure being placed within the local landscape. Please let me know what you think about this proposal by completing my online survey at Mobile Phone Mast Survey. It is important that as many as possible give me their views. Although planning applications are not decided on a "referendum" basis, it is helpful to the planning system if the views of those who feel strongly for or against a project can be carefully considered in the overall balance of benefits versus detriment.
November 2014
|
||
|
|
|
