Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0442738000082; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SNUhA-0005VI-53 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:49:40 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SNUh9-0005V9-Ky for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:49:39 +0100 Received: from smtpout2.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.42] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SNUh7-0000ah-Id for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:49:38 +0100 Received: from AGB ([2.26.21.82]) by mwinf5d27 with ME id 2jpT1j00B1mFXqS03jpTmp; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:49:36 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Graham" To: References: <4F99A446.4080400@o2.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4F99A446.4080400@o2.co.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:49:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120426-0, 26/04/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean 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: Ok Peter, Those are the questions asked, the base and removability , checking up. seems to be a 4 year rule and a 10 year rule , I thought it was 7 years for no permission being required ? or was that some time ago ? [...] 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 [80.12.242.42 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: e43fe7093e9b3ae0dc118eec4efba8a5 Subject: Re: LF: UK Ae mast planning info Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0220_01CD23EE.120DDF20" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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-sid: 3039ac1dc1464f99ad425b61 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0220_01CD23EE.120DDF20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok Peter, Those are the questions asked, the base and removability , checking = up. seems to be a 4 year rule and a 10 year rule , I thought = it was 7 years for no permission being required ? or was that = some time ago ? Tnx -G.. From: Peter Dodd=20 Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:38 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: UK Ae mast planning info 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:=20 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0220_01CD23EE.120DDF20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ok Peter,
 
Those are the  questions  asked,  the  base and = removability , checking  up. seems  to  be a  = 4 =20 year  rule  and  a 10  year  rule , I  = thought=20 it  was  7 years  for  no permission  = being =20 required ? or  was that  some time  ago ?
 
Tnx -G..

From: Peter Dodd
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: LF: UK Ae mast planning info

Hi Graham,
How the mast is fixed into the ground is=20 irrelevant. The planning permission is just for the mast. There is no=20 distinction between permanent and temporary in the planning laws to my=20 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=20 that works.

I live in rather a stuffy private estate and I got = permission=20 on appeal on the grounds that the mast was fold-over and I agreed to = only have=20 it raised at night. Over the years the people who made all the fuss = about the=20 antenna have since died and I put it up when I like. Whether this is due = to=20 indifference or fear that the curse of the radio mast will strike again = is not=20 known.


Peter, G3LDO



On 26/04/2012 18:53, = Graham wrote:=20
Can anyone  advise on the  planning  = relevance  /=20 requirements to  these  questions  , with  regards = to  Ae pole  at the  bottom of the  garden
 
1. = Is the secure=20 base moveable or is it concreted into the ground?
2. = Can the mast be=20 readily removed from the secure base?
3. = If the mast is=20 a permanent structure, has the refurbishment resulted in the erection = of an=20 entirely new mast,
 
what  is the  relevance  of the  base  = being=20 concreted into the  ground ?
 
I assume the  question  of  detaching  = the  pole=20 from the  base  is  one  of  permanent =  or=20 temporary  structure ?
 
replacing  like with  like  would  not  = be=20 classed as  a  new mast ?
 
Tnx -G
 
 

No virus found in this=20 message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / = Virus=20 Database: 2411/4959 - Release Date: = 04/25/12


------=_NextPart_000_0220_01CD23EE.120DDF20--