Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dc01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 01F4F3800008E; Thu, 3 May 2012 06:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SPtWE-0005Dg-A7 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 May 2012 11:44:18 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SPtWD-0005DX-Rz for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 May 2012 11:44:17 +0100 Received: from out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.240]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SPtWB-0007Hh-Vv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 03 May 2012 11:44:16 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As0GAL9gok9cF/Y7/2dsb2JhbABFhW2ENpYpkliBCIIEBQEBBAEIAQEDFiYNAiYGAQEDBQIBAxEDAQEBAQICBSECAhQBBBoGFggGEwoBAgIBAYduAwYJqAaSd4EviFeDXYINgRgEi0iCMo5miWCCaIFUFw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,523,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="370759608" Received: from host-92-23-246-59.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([92.23.246.59]) by out1.ip04ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 03 May 2012 11:44:14 +0100 Message-ID: <005501cd2919$aeeb9b90$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: References: <4F99A446.4080400@o2.co.uk> <1335704544.3002.5.camel@g4gvw-high-grade> Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 10:44:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: 4 years is the requirement NOT 10 years de G3KEV ----- Original Message ----- From: "pat" To: Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 1:02 PM Subject: Re: LF: UK Ae mast planning info [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.240 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FSL_XM_419 Old OE version in X-Mailer only seen in 419 spam -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FSL_UA FSL_UA X-Scan-Signature: 7f2e5481aa97b3cbff3d653a1b2ddfbd Subject: Re: LF: UK Ae mast planning info Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:454111616:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40814fa261cb6952 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none 4 years is the requirement NOT 10 years de G3KEV ----- Original Message ----- From: "pat" To: Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 1:02 PM Subject: Re: LF: UK Ae mast planning info > Hi Peter, > > It's worth bearing in mind that it is possible to obtain a Certificate > of Lawful Development for Existing Use - CLUED. The general proviso > being that you must be able to substantiate that the "existing use" has > persisted for a period of 10 years. Always worth investigating as the > granting of such a certificate is "evidence-based" and not supposed to > be at the whim of an official. > > 73 > > > > On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 20:38 +0100, Peter Dodd wrote: > > Hi Graham, > > How the mast is fixed into the ground is irrelevant. The planning > > permission is just for the mast. There is no distinction between > > permanent and temporary in the planning laws to my knowledge, > > > > In the past some have tried to circumvent the planning restriction by > > having a portable (mast on trailer) arrangement but I don't think that > > works. > > > > I live in rather a stuffy private estate and I got permission on > > appeal on the grounds that the mast was fold-over and I agreed to only > > have it raised at night. Over the years the people who made all the > > fuss about the antenna have since died and I put it up when I like. > > Whether this is due to indifference or fear that the curse of the > > radio mast will strike again is not known. > > > > > > Peter, G3LDO > > > > > > > > On 26/04/2012 18:53, Graham wrote: > > > Can anyone advise on the planning relevance / requirements to > > > these questions , with regards to Ae pole at the bottom of the > > > garden > > > > > > 1. Is the secure base moveable or is it concreted into the ground? > > > 2. Can the mast be readily removed from the secure base? > > > 3. If the mast is a permanent structure, has the refurbishment > > > resulted in the erection of an entirely new mast, > > > > > > what is the relevance of the base being concreted into the > > > ground ? > > > > > > I assume the question of detaching the pole from the base is > > > one of permanent or temporary structure ? > > > > > > replacing like with like would not be classed as a new mast ? > > > > > > Tnx -G > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4959 - Release Date: > > > 04/25/12 > > > > > > > -- > 73 es gd dx de Pat G4GVW, Nr Felixstowe, East Coast, UK > >