Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 9th September 2010

Probe into siting of mobile phone mast

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 January 2009
AN investigation has been ordered after council bosses agreed to spend £85,000 relocating a mobile phone mast.
Blackpool Council faced losing a £1.7m housing grant if it did not agree to pay the relocation fee.

The Housing Corporation cash – to be used to build 26 homes on land at Tarnbrook Drive, Grange Park – will be withdrawn if the scheme does not begin by this March, the policy overview and scrutiny management committee was told.

The committee agreed the council should pay the cost of relocating the mast so the scheme, already delayed from last July, could go ahead.

However, councillors called for further investigations into why the structure had been allowed to be put up in the first place on land earmarked for redevelopment.

Coun Simon Blackburn, chairman of the audit committee, "called in" the decision of Coun Lily Henderson, cabinet member for adult social housing, who gave permission for the council to fund relocation of the mast, for further investigation by councillors.

He said: "Nobody would want to stand in the way of development in an area that clearly needs development. I would ask the committee to consider referring this issue back to the appropriate scrutiny committee to see what has gone wrong while allowing the development to go ahead."

Coun Henderson said: "The people who gave permission for the mast to be put up didn't follow correct procedure.

"Now we are in a position where if we don't move quickly, we won't get the finance we need to make Tarnbook look like somewhere people can live in dignity. We should accept there have been mistakes made.

"We now have to make sure we go ahead and get this development put up."

The mast was put up in June 2005 on what was thought to be Highways land for which no planning permission was required. The council's estates department agreed the deal.

The council should have received in the region of £160,000 from developer Muir Housing for the land but instead must use £85,000 of the capital receipt to fund the relocation of the mast.

The committee agreed Coun Henderson's decision should be implemented but recommended the appropriate scrutiny committee look further into the matter to determine how the mast came to be put in place in the first place.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 January 2009 8:59 AM
  • Source: Blackpool Gazette
  • Location: Blackpool
 
Prev
1
Next
1

fyldecoast,

fylde 14/01/2009 09:13:57
oops... what they didn't know who owned the land, what a joke!
2

,

14/01/2009 10:17:25
Comment Reported Unsuitable By User
3

Lol, North Shore,

Blackpool 14/01/2009 11:15:15
I still can't grasp why it costs £85,000 to move the thing. i could move it in twenty minutes with an electric saw.
4

davie@layton,

14/01/2009 15:26:19
Whilst not wishing this deprived area of blackpool to miss out on a much needed social housing developlment, I consider Councillor Blackburn is quite right, some one somewhere has made this decision to site the mast in a most inappropriate place. How could the council not know they owned the land, isnt that what the legal department in town hall is PAID TO KNOW. Its not rocket sceince contact the land registary pay the fee they tell you.

And its typical of councillor Lily Henderson, passing the buck, SORRY LILY its your portfolio YOU SHOULD HAVE known. Perhaps its time for certain councillors to be put out to grass. Many including Cllr Henderson have served this town well, but these days its a young persons world & someone with a head for business & who knows what the communitys want. However if the Council want to spend money on improving estates, HOW ABOUT DOING SOMETHING AT QUEENS PARK, were is the £66 million they got for decent homes being spent. GRANGE PARK not Queens Park, isnt it time money was spent fairly accross the board. NO NOT WITH THIS SHOWER at the town hall, role on the next elections perhaps we might get a better service. JUST REMEMBER FOLKS your Vote Counts.
5

davie@layton,

14/01/2009 15:41:47
What happened to freedom of speach do some people not like the fact that others have views and opinions, typical all comments not in keeping with council views get deleted.

LOOK OUT MINE WILL BE NEXT
6

ebby,

15/01/2009 02:30:46
I know they're all half wits at that council.democracy and freedom of speech are alien concepts to them.

Money just seems to evaporate, where does it go,where is the evidence of where all these millions get spent, These estates look the same today as they did 25 years ago aand central Blackpool esp central Drive is a hundred times worse. the town centre looks terrible now with empty buildings once next,iver island, harveys and so on, So much for debenhams being a main attraction, I,ve been into town a total of 3 times in the last twelve momnts I hate it and now Adams, Zavvi, and woolworths are to go all these empty shops look horrific, Debenhams only came here I bet because the coucil convinced them that we would get casinos, when we were thriving we had a Lewis's and that went, so did Binns, what,s so different now.
7

YeOldeCynic,

Blackpool 15/01/2009 08:03:28
The elected members have no idea what the Chief Executive and the Regeneration company are up to; they simply sign up to what ever is presented to them!

The previous comments are correct, millions of pounds come into Bpl yet the majority of it is fritted away. They bitch about losing the casino bid (clearly it was not good enough) but that was literally years ago; what have they done since, absolutely rock all!

They would not be so quick to agree to paying the 85 grand if it came out of their pockets and not the taxpayers.

Roll the next election.
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.