The Planning Inspectorate

3/25 Hawk Wing

Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Temple Quay

Bristol

BS1 6PN

Dear Sir.

CfPS have been instructed by local residents to request that consideration is given to the above appeal being heard under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors)(Inquiries Procedure)(England) Rules 2000, rather than the intended Written Representation Procedure Regulations.

Within the local community there is considerable concern that this development should not be approved. This high level of public interest is in our submission grounds for concluding that it is appropriate that this development is considered by an inspector hearing evidence at a public inquiry, and that the local community are able to witness the testing of evidence presented by the parties, as well as being able to address the inquiry.

Whilst we accept that as a consequence of Section 79(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 only the Local Planning Authority and the Appellant has a right to appear before and be heard by an Inspector, we argue that if the Secretary of state or the Inspector is of the view that it is expedient in the circumstances of the individual appeal then he can require that the appeal is heard at a hearing convened for that purpose.

We further argue that as a consequence of the Common Law dictum that 'justice must not only be done, it must seem to be done' and the provisions of Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Principles that 'In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ….. everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing …', all hearings should be public hearings when requested by the community affected by the proposed development. As such we therefore formally request that this appeal is heard in public, and that the public are given adequate opportunity to address the inquiry.

Whilst there are examples within Convention law that adds strength to our argument in our submission we look no further than the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights handed down on the 2^nd October 2001 Hatton and Others v. The United Kingdom App no. 36022/97. Whilst the point is made specifically in relation to judicial review proceedings, we argue that it equally applies to all proceedings that are governed by a Convention Right. In para 114 it sets out '… the Court concluded that judicial review was not an effective remedy on the grounds that the domestic courts defined policy issues so broadly that it was not possible for the applicants to make their Convention points regarding their rights under Article 8 of the convention in the domestic courts'. If therefore the appeal is not able to be tested by a public hearing, it would effectively be open to challenge on the grounds that there has not been a fair and public hearing.

In the present case there is the need for a public hearing due to matters that can best be described as being of 'important public interest'. Albeit such a rational can be overcome by there being in place an adequate appeal process, whilst the appellant does indeed enjoy such a right members of the local community do not, and as in the above case it has been demonstrated that judicial review is not a satisfactory process to give the degree of protection that would enable somewhere within the process for a public hearing to take place. It must therefore be concluded that in this case it is not only appropriate, but desirable that this appeal be held in public session.

We also argue that the nature of phone masts, especially those for TETRA installations is concerned with health, this is a major topic that can only be judged through the process of a public inquiry, with the evidence tested by cross examination.

For the above reasons we request that this application is called in for a public inquiry.

Yours sincerely

Chris Maile