Amber Valley Borough Council has confessed to making
mistakes in its handling of T-Mobile's application for a mast at the Catermole Contractors site – which now looks likely to become permanent.
Protesters have fought to rid the village of the controversial monopole mast since 1999 and believed it would be taken down in 2004.
But in reality the mast never needed the planning permission, the time limit was unenforceable and the residents were fighting a losing battle.
The council's chief executive Peter Carney has admitted that planning officers mishandled the original application from T-Mobile in 1999. But he has warned any legal battle for compensation by the campaigners could leave them with a hefty bill for costs.
The monopole mast was originally given the go ahead in 1999 with a condition attached to it stating planning permission would need to be applied for again in five years.
T-Mobile did that in 2004 but permission was never given because councillors could not decide on the issue.
At first T-Mobile threatened to take the council to appeal but withdrew its action in June 2006.
It has now been claimed that the mast only required prior approval – a fast track through the planning process where in effect Government has already granted planning permission.
Last summer, Cllr Chris Emmas-Williams took up the case for his constituents and wrote to Mr Carney demanding to know why the mast was still standing, two years after they believed it would be dismantled.
Mr Carney replied that the mast did not need permission and does not need to be removed.
In his reply to Cllr Emmas-Williams, Mr Carney said: "In 1999 an application was received for prior approval of the telephone masts at Codnor and this application for prior approval was erroneously treated as an application for planning permission rather than for a prior approval under part XXIV of the General Permitted Development Order by the council.
"The prior approval was granted for the site but erroneously a condition was imposed which attempted to limit the duration of the prior approval to five years."
"To this extent I can concede that there was a shortcoming in relation to the actual dealing with the application in 1999.
"However, the further application made in 2004 was itself unnecessary in the light of the likely illegality of the condition and the point which had to be addressed by the council was how best to manage the situation."
Cllr Emmas-Williams said: "I'm very disappointed and I feel the residents have been let down and misled.
"My concern about the residents taking it further is that it will cost a lot of money to fight something like this and I'm not sure it's something you could win.
"I don't know how it would be possible to get that sort of money together. It's times like this that everything seems to be up against the people in the street."
Mr Carney makes it clear in his letter that the council will fight any compensation claim: "I am firmly of the view that no claim for compensation lies. I would, therefore strongly urge those involved to take professional advice before taking matters further in this respect.
"I would recommend to the council that where the merits are with the council, as in this case, to strongly resist any such legal actions and to apply for the full measure of its legal costs against the persons who bring such claims if they are ultimately dismissed by the courts."

sarah.bould@rhnews.co.uk