From: pat <g4gvw@aol.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <4F99A446.4080400@o2.co.uk>
References: <CE6BEA9F709A4B55A925720C011F39CD@AGB>
	 <4F99A446.4080400@o2.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:02:24 +0100
Message-ID: <1335704544.3002.5.camel@g4gvw-high-grade>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
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:  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. [...] 
 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
                             [205.188.105.144 listed in list.dnswl.org]
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (g4gvw[at]aol.com)
 -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD      Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
                             domain
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
X-Scan-Signature: 0317e2ac8ed27149e57223a21580246d
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: 0:2:402429664:93952408  
X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  
X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m219.2 ; domain : mx.aol.com DKIM : pass  
x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d404c4f9d3b890cce
X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25
X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none


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