Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00776/B Applicant: Manx Telecom Proposal: Replacement of existing chimney with a new chimney, and the installation of two telecommunications antennas Site Address: Royal George Hotel 10 - 12 Market Place East Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 1JY Case Officer : Mr S Butler Photo Taken: 12.09.2017 Site Visit: 12.09.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.10.2017 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to minimise any impact on the Conservation Area.
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of visual amenity and to minimise any impact on the Conservation Area.
of any damage caused by removal of the infrastructure hereby approved, to return the chimney stack to its current appearance, must also be carried out within 3 months.
Reason: To ensure that any redundant infrastructure is removed. Plans/Drawings/Information:
This approval relates to the plans, drawing and information date stamped as having been received on the 21st July 2017 including drawings 101, 102C, 103D, 104C and 105 and document entitled, "Supplementary Information".
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Officer’s Report Preamble
There is a Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Telecommunications) Order 2013, (hereafter 'the Telecommunications Order') under which certain telecommunications equipment can be installed without the need for a full planning application, or in some circumstances where the Department may only consider the siting and appearance of equipment proposed.
Schedule 2 of this sets out the Permitted Development within Conservation Areas and indicates, "Development is not permitted by paragraph 1 if it consists of the installation of apparatus above ground (otherwise than inside an existing building or other structure), unless carried out in an emergency".
The current proposal is within a Conservation Area, not within a building and above ground, therefore a full application is required.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a Public House ("The Royal George") within the centre of Ramey and within the Conservation Area. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of uses including residential, industrial and a number of public houses and independent businesses (including retail).
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The applicant proposes to face-mount two antennas onto two existing chimneys, coloured to match the background. However, as one of the chimneys is not structurally capable of accommodating the antennas, it is proposed to replace it on a like-for-like basis. The applicant indicates that the overall height of the proposed antennas has been kept to its
3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 3.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Mixed Use (Town Centre)" within the Ramsey Local Plan (1998) and is within a Conservation Area. The plan states at paragraph 9.11, "Conservation Area Designation does not inhibit development but does require a greater degree of control". - 3.2 The following Strategic Plan (2016) policies are considered to be relevant. - 3.3 Infrastructure Policy 3 (IP3) reads as follows:
"A balance must be struck between the need for new, evolving communications systems to satisfy residential and business demand and the impact that the necessary infrastructure will have upon the environment. Measures which may help to achieve a satisfactory balance will include a presumption against visually intrusive masts in sensitive landscapes, the encouragement of mast sharing by different operators, and the removal of redundant infrastructure. Exceptions to this policy would need to demonstrate a strategic national need, which cannot be otherwise secured by mast sharing or alternative locations".
3.5 Environment Policy 35 (EP35) states,
"Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development".
4.1 'Vision2020' set out the government's three priorities as being to grow the economy, balance the budget and protect the vulnerable. It had this to say about telecommunications equipment:
"The Isle of Man will be known as a leading centre for innovative SMEs to relocate and grow due to its excellent infrastructure (telecoms, electricity and data hosting)."
4.2 The Programme for Government (2016) sets out a number of outcomes under the "Enterprise and Opportunity Island" which include, "we have an infrastructure which supports social and economic wellbeing" and "we have utilities that support our island communities and
5.1 There are a number of applications associated with the application site, including for the erection of advertising signage (16/00279/D).
5.2 12/01158/GB for "Installation of four face mounted antennas to existing chimneys (In association with 12/01159/CON)" at Nightlife, Market Place West was approved in 2012. The officer's report concluded, "The proposed antennas would not be readily visible from the public thoroughfare at ground level. The size of each antenna is modest and does not evidently detract from the character of the property; especially given the building has a vast array of cornicing on the front elevation. In conclusion, taking into consideration the Conservation Officer's report, it is not considered the proposal would be unduly adverse to the character or setting of the Registered Building or Conservation Area as viewed by the public. As such, the proposal complies with the relevant policy provisions in General Policy 2, Environment Policy 32 and Environment Policy 35 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007".
5.3 Both the Planning Approval and Registered Building Consent were subject to four conditions - the standard '4 year' condition, one clarifying the approved plans and the two set out below.
6.1 DOI Highway Services have confirmed "No Highways Interest" (04/08/17).
6.2 Ramsey Town Council have confirmed they have no objection (response date stamped 25/08/17).
6.3 The Director of Public Health commented as follows (on 21/09/17), "The application includes a declaration of conformity with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and therefore, on the basis of best currently available evidence, does not represent any threat to population health. I note the comments from a member of the public who lives close to the hotel. His concerns about possible health effects are general (i.e. not specific to this site) and are not supported by current evidence. There are no additional features which would indicate any need for further health impact assessment".
6.4 In response to the amended plans/certificate, the Director of Public Health further commented as follows (on 20/010/17), I note that the discrepancy relates to a change in the antenna type proposed for use at the site. This antenna is smaller than the one previously proposed and the applicant has confirmed that the ICNIRP certificate covers the alternative antenna. There is no change in respect of the siting of the antenna. Therefore, it remains the case that on best available evidence the proposal does not constitute a threat to public health and there is no need for any further health impact assessment. - 6.5 A number of comments have been received from an objector at 203 Kings Court, as reproduced below.
Comment 1. Comment received via on-line services on 24th August 2017 which states, "Kings Court is across the road & the apartments are mostly old residents & they have not had the opportunity to see this application. No one has spoken to the residents of Kings Court as far as I know. Why have the applicants not been in touch with this applications, as to the impact of the possible airways? Just for the record, as I appeared to have lost the computer message, the Planning notice was not displayed outside the Royle on the due date i.e. not for the full 21 days & this needs to be brought to the Planners notice as there appears to be MAJOR problems with the planning process, to say the least, & this needs to be or will be sorted. Relationship to site: Immediately adjacent to the site".
2017) and relating to San Diego (US) entitled, "Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone Towers Raised".
. Then hand written on top of the page, 17/00776/B updated info ? what has been updated? The letters are the same ? yet again, more plans produced and the public are given more time to consider these alterations & as previously stated, this whole application needs to be readvertised"
7.1 It is noted that although the proposal is not within an area specifically designed for telecommunications use, it is noted that the proposal will not prevent the existing use of the site as a Public House from continuing. Therefore compliance with landuse zoning is dependent on compliance with IP3.
7.2 IP3 sets a presumption against visually intrusive masts in sensitive landscapes and it is considered that in the context of the current application, a Conservation Area is capable of being a sensitive landscape. IP3 indicates that exceptions to IP3 would need to demonstrate a strategic national need, which cannot be otherwise secured by mast sharing or alternative locations.
7.3 Therefore the question is, is the proposal visually intrusive within the Conservation Area, and if so has an overriding need and consideration of alternatives been demonstrated? Impact on the Conservation Area
7.4 The applicant has stated that their original telecommunications site for central Ramsey was on the chimney of a Registered Building - 'Nightlife' on West Market Place, which was granted planning Approval and Registered Building Consent (12/01158/GB & 12/01159/CON). - 7.5 It is noted that there are a number of items on buildings around the square within which the application site is situated (such as Satellite TV dishes). The detail of the proposed works is such that its visual impact will be minimal. Furthermore, the proposal is a replacement (rather than additional) site, and will result in equipment being moved from a building which is Registered to one which is not. - 7.6 It is therefore considered that the overall impact on the Conservation Area will be neutral, with a positive in the sense that it would enable the removal of infrastructure from a Registered Building. If the application were approved, it would be appropriate to duplicate the conditions attached to the current consent at Nightlife and an additional condition to ensure that the equipment does not protrude above the top of the chimney. The need for the proposed development and consideration of alternative sites - 7.7 The Strategic Plan and other relevant non-planning policies make clear the importance the Government places on ensuring a fit-for-purpose network of telecommunication infrastructure. - 7.8 The applicant has stated that their original telecommunications site for central Ramsey was on the chimney of 'Nightlife' on West Market Place. However, the building has been sold and the new owners have served a Notice to Quit. Therefore, a replacement site is required. - 7.9 The applicants note that the Nightlife site was an established base station within an existing network of sites and so the replacement site needs to replicate the existing coverage as closely possible. - 7.10 The applicant has identified the Royal George as a suitable replacement as it is within the same area (the applicant has provided coverage plots to demonstrate this) and is not Registered. Because the proposed replacement site is not a Registered Building (and therefore arguably an improvement over the existing situation), is a replacement of an existing site which for technical reasons needs to be in a similar location, the applicant has not considered alternative options. - 7.11 It is considered that the proposal is not visually intrusive within the Conservation Area and it is therefore not required to demonstrate need or consideration of alternatives. Nevertheless, in light of the above it is considered that the need for the proposed development
has been established. It is accepted that the applicant has not considered wider alternatives, but has explained the operational and practical reasons for this. Although this element of the application is not particularly persuasive (as other buildings exist within the same area which are not Registered) given that the impact on the Conservation Area is considered acceptable it is considered that the proposal complies with IP3.
Potential Health impacts
7.12 It is noted the majority of the points raised in the correspondence with the member of the public to relate to procedural issues, however it would appear that the individual also objects to the principle of the development on health grounds. - 7.13 While it has been held in the UK courts that the concern regarding the impact of a proposal such as this on health can be a material consideration in an officer's assessment, the weight to be given to this concern depends in each case. It is also true that every application should be determined on its own merits and without prejudice to other decisions made elsewhere, albeit that regard can certainly be had to proposals, their impacts, and the manner of their assessment. - 7.14 While there have been comments received that raise concern with regards the health impacts of the proposal, it is right that the view of the Director of Public Health be given significant weight. She has stated that the proposal is acceptable from a public health point of view, and that no further investigation or assessment is required. Accordingly, there is no reason that the application should be refused on health grounds.
8.1 On the basis of the above assessment a positive recommendation is made, including conditions. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 24.10.2017 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown