Subject: URGENT: 26/00508/EC – 18m telecoms monopole at Hawthorn Close, Hitchin
Dear Planning Officer et al,
I am writing regarding the proposed telecommunications installation on land adjacent to 53 Hawthorn Close, Hitchin, and specifically the 2026 case 26/00508/EC. I have only just become aware of this proposal after seeing notices stating that “Essential Road Works” are due to commence next week in the vicinity of Hawthorn Close/Cranborne Avenue. Until this week, I had no knowledge that a revised telecommunications proposal had been submitted following the refusal of the previous scheme in 2025.
I am extremely concerned about both the proposal itself and, particularly, the process by which it appears to have been considered without any notification to local residents.
Previous 2025 proposal. The previous proposal, 25/01258/TD, involved a 20m telecommunications monopole at this location. It attracted very considerable local opposition, with more than 150 residents objecting, and Prior Approval was subsequently refused in June 2025. The strength of local feeling about a substantial telecommunications mast at this particular location was therefore very clearly known to the Council.
Revised 2026 proposal. I have now seen the drawings. The proposed monopole has been reduced from 20m to 18m, with changes to the antenna arrangement and associated equipment. Nevertheless, it remains a new and substantial freestanding monopole at the same location that was the subject of significant local objection and a refusal only last year. The elevation shows the surrounding tree level at approximately 12m, so the monopole would extend roughly 6m above the canopy.
Lack of consultation. The Council’s record for 26/00508/EC shows: received and validated 19 March 2026; neighbour consultation, standard consultation, advertisement and site notice all “Not Applicable”; decision made 30 March; issued 31 March; decision “No Objection”. As a result, the many residents who had objected to the previous proposal were given no notification and no opportunity to comment on the revised scheme.
I would be grateful for an urgent response to the following:
- Under precisely what statutory provision was 26/00508/EC submitted and considered?
- Why did the 2025 proposal require the Prior Approval procedure, whereas the 2026 proposal apparently did not?
- What specific differences between the refused 20m scheme and the 18m scheme meant the latter could be dealt with as a notification rather than through Prior Approval?
- On what legal basis was neighbour consultation, advertisement and a site notice considered “Not Applicable”?
- Given the known public interest in this site, was any consideration given to notifying residents even if statutory consultation was not required? If not, why not?
- Does the Council consider the 18m monopole now has all necessary authority to be installed, or is there any remaining process or consent required before installation can commence?
- Are the “Essential Road Works” advertised for next week connected with the installation of this monopole or its equipment?
- If so, who authorised those highway works, what do they involve, and on what dates?
- What opportunity is available to residents to raise concerns or challenge the installation before any irreversible works take place?
Having participated in a process last year in which more than 150 residents made their views known, those residents could reasonably have believed the matter had concluded when the proposal was refused. It is extremely concerning to discover — apparently only because roadworks notices appeared — that a revised 18m mast may have received a “No Objection” decision without residents being aware it was under consideration.
I would ask that this matter is treated as urgent in light of the roadworks advertised for next week, and that the Council confirm that steps can be taken to prevent installation of the monopole commencing while these questions are being addressed.
Kind regards