Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00776/B Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.10.2017 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
C 2. Within one month of the antennas and their supporting structures being installed, they shall be colour coated to match the render of the chimney stack. Any replacement or modification of the render or telecommunications equipment shall be colour coated to match the existing render within one month of it being carried out.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to minimise any impact on the Conservation Area.
C 3. No part of the telecommunications infrastructure hereby permitted shall be installed as such a way as to protrude above the height (excluding the height of any chimney pots) of the chimney stack onto which it is mounted.
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.
C 4. In the event of the antennas erected under this approval becoming redundant, they must be taken down along with all ancillary infrastructure and be removed from the site within 3 months of the cessation of the use. Any necessary repair work to the chimney stack, as a result
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00776/B Page 2 of 10
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
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00776/B Page 3 of 10
technical minimum to meet the coverage requirements, and would not protrude above the roof-line.
2.2 The application is accompanied by a certificate of compliance with the World Health Organisation's ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure to radiation from telecommunications equipment. (ICNIRP is the initialism for the "International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection".)
2.3 After the application had been publicised, a discrepancy was identified with the plans - namely that the proposed equipment as shown in one of the plans was smaller than shown on two of the other plans. The applicant has confirmed that it is the smaller equipment that is proposed, and the technical information is unchanged. Amended plans to address this have been supplied, together with an updated ICNIRP certificate. Given the circumstances, it was not considered necessary to fully re-advertise or recirculate the application for comment, but given a new ICNIRP certificate was provided the Director of Public Health was re-consulted. However, all those who commented on the application were notified of the revised plans and it is noted that further comments were received from the one member of the public who has previously commented on the application. Further to this a typographical error was identified in the ICNIRP certificate, and a corrected certificate has been provided.
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".
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 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
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00776/B Page 4 of 10
businesses". The policy statements underneath include, "Ensure we are a digital Island, ready for new technologies like 5G, so we remain competitive now and in the future".
4.3 The applicants have indicated how they have taken into account the guidance within the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development (2013) noting that whilst it relates specifically to England they consider it relevant.
4.4 Reference has been made by representor to the application to a report of the Council of Ministers entitled, "A Review into the Health Impacts of Mobile Phone Masts in the Isle of Man" (June 2009). This made a number of recommendations, those directly relating to planning are set out below.
R2. That the Isle of Man follows the International Commission on Nonionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) levels. R3. On a precautionary principle basis there should be a general presumption against granting planning permission for any future mobile phone mast Base stations which do not meet the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure. R4. That the Department of Local Government and the Environment to accept the Director of Public Health as a notified party for any planning applications for the erection of a mobile phone mast. R6. That permitted development rights for Telecommunications Code System Operators under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Order 2005 in regard to the erection of Mobile Phone Masts* be rescinded. R7. That a voluntary Code of Practice on Mobile Phone Mast Development be introduced based on the one operating in the United Kingdom. R9. That any submission from a third party on a planning application for a mobile phone mast which raises health issues is referred to Public Health for comment.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 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. o Within one month of the antennas and their supporting structures being installed, they shall be colour coated to match the existing render of the chimney stack. Any replacement or modification shall be colour coated to match within one month of it being carried out. o In the event of the antennas erected under this approval becoming redundant, they must be taken down along with all ancillary infrastructure and be removed from the site within 3 months of the cessation of the use. Any necessary repair work to the chimney stack, as a result of any damage caused by installation of the antennas, must also be carried out.
6.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 DOI Highway Services have confirmed "No Highways Interest" (04/08/17).
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00776/B Page 5 of 10
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".
Comment 1.1. Letter received on the 12th September 2017 which states, "Please find enclosed my findings and objections to the above. You will see that some of the findings refer to a similar application at Kings Court, where I live. I would submit that the same problems still exist, as the Royal George is approximately 100 yards from Kings Court. Please do not grant this application. Are you prepared to put surrounding residents, the young, infirm and the elderly's lives at risk? What a lasting legacy. Given the information you must, as reasonable doubt has been established, reject this application. Time will tell, do you want to hear the words, another disaster has happened but "well we learn by our mistakes?" I am sure that should a similar application be submitted near your properties, you would be "up in arms". Health and safety is of paramount importance and must be addressed to this, and not monetary gain". On a procedural note, the full 21 day notice was not displayed as legally required". Attached to this are: o The decision notice for planning application 98/1661 the "Erection of telecommunications monopole with 3 sector antennas and equipment cabin" which was refused on the 29th April 1999 as the development, "would result in unnecessary additional visual "clutter" in a prominent location". o Comments on planning application 98/1661 from Manx National Heritage in which they comment that, "The Trustees have recently confirmed that the proliferation of mast structures on the Island is of great concern to them..." o Note from the Kings Court Residents Committee objecting to planning application 98/1661 raising concerns in relation to Television Reception, Safety, Radiation Safety and Degrees of Hazard and submission from the Chaiman (Dr. J. V. Dunworth), which includes comments from the Committee Vice Chairman G. Bell
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00776/B Page 6 of 10
o The response from James Barr (Chartered Surveyors) to the above points dated 5th January 1999 (on behalf of the applicant, Manx Telecom) o Four newspaper articles which appears to be in relation to the above planning application (Manx Independent, 26th March and 2nd April 1999, Examiner 2nd March 99 and one with source/date unstated). o Newspaper article in relation to a proposal at Glen May (West News, 23rd February 1999) o Magazine Article by Robert Bell about putting telecoms equipment on roofs (it is not clear what publication this is from or the date) o A newspaper article about smartphones (source quoted as "Mail 09/09/17). o Extract from Wikipedia (dated 26th August 2017) in relation to Mobile phone radiation and health o Extract from BBC website - an article published 13th September 2004 (retrieved 26th August 2017) entitled, "Phone Masts - A Health Risk" o An extract from "East County Magazine" dated November 2008 (accessed 26th August 2017) and relating to San Diego (US) entitled, "Dangers of Living Near Cell Phone Towers Raised".
Comment 1.2 Comment received via on-line services on 14th September which states, "good of mono to state the date of the notice put up on 11th aug. the publication date was the 4th and, therefore the required legal 21 days, makes the notice only being displayed for 14 days, to the 25th?".
Comment 1.3 E-mail dated 14th September which states, "ref will be made to the attached, and also Your PLANNING CHARTER and DEFA standing Order No 03/16 which know doubt you will be aware of" and includes two attachments, a COMIN Report, 'A REVIEW INTO THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF MOBILE PHONE MASTS IN THE ISLE OF MAN' (2009) and another attachment which could not be opened. (the file is entitled "attachment information" and GtS advised on 19th September that this 2nd attachment is to do with how the PDF and e-mail was processed and so is not relevant).
Comment 1.4 Comment received via on-line services also on 14th September, which states, "attention steve butler, for the record i have sent an e.mail with attachment, GR No.20/09, Report of the Council of Minsters, " A review into the Health Impacts of Mobile Phone Masts in the Isle of Man. Also, reference to Your PLANNING CHARTER & DEFA Standing Order No 03/16".
Comment 1.5 E-mail dated 15th September which states, "Whilst speaking on the phone, you agreed to chase up my 2 subsequent submissions of further information, on the 14th sep & my direct e.mail to your Steve Butler, same date, ( & now re-sent )which, as i stated, have not been "up-loaded" to your public access on-line services, as of 12.45pm today."
Comment 1.6 E-mail dated 19th September which you states, "Planners ; attention steve butler. third submission; ref ; ref will be made to the attached and also Your PLANNING CHARTER and DEFA standing Order No 03/16 which know doubt you will be aware of. John Strickett Attachments: U:.pdf Plus: Your File Memo 18/9/17 Relationship to site: Close to the site(please elaborate Reply; I have already stated that Kings Court is close to this site. Why are you asking again ? John Strickett" (note: this e-mail did not include any attachments).
Comment 1.7 E-mail dated 25/09/17 which states,"Further to this e.mail of 20/9/17, the contents of which i find somewhat troublesome. Whilst you appear to be acting in an Autocratic manner, and i refuse to be intimidated, by you, and i would now reply as follows. 1, Your contradictory reply of the notice period ? Can you explain to me, as i have been informed, why a member of Kings Court Association, who phoned your department, the day after the 25th aug. only to be told that they were to late to make any submission. This does
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/00776/B Page 7 of 10
not appear anywhere in your various memos ? Can you confirm with whom they spoke to, and the officer concerned. 2, Your interpretations of your own guide-lines are clearly shown to be conflicted. 3, You quote " I do not think...to be determined by committee" ... is arrogant and condescending, to say the least. 4, You also state " please note that it is this Departments procedure to seek comments from the Director of Public Health with regards planning applications proposing the installation of telecommunications equipment".. Why had this not already been done ? Please furnish me with a copy of their letter. 5, Only by myself submitting these e.mails to you, that you appear, to give cognizance, to your failings. 6, Summerland, Grenfell, when will it stop ? 7, Why was it necessary, for you to visit the site on the 12/9/17 ? 8, Your actions appear to "conflict" with your own code of conduct ? 9, It will be interesting to publish the Council of Ministers report June 2009, as to how many of the Recommendations have been carried out ? 10, What a lasting legacy you with have to bear. In determination, can you re-state the exact statutes you operate under ?"
Comment 1.8 comment via website on 18/10/17 which states, "I see the further correspondence from MT, Mono etc informing you or errors in the original application. You have also suggested not charging the fee of £80 admin charge for amended plans why? And with what authority? This application is illegal and must be rejected. Whilst you appear to be giving your support to the applicant you again take no notice of the public interest?"
Comment 1.9 E-mail dated 18th October which states "FYI Retention & for the record, amongst other things" the e-mail has an attachment which is he letters page from h Manx Independent 5th October 2017 which includes a letter questioning the legal basis of Planning Committee.
Comment 1.10 comment via website dated 19/10/17 which states, "MORE ERRORS 17/00776/14 MT letter 17/10/17 "as detailed in drawings 'Royal George hotel Hilberry, ... ? . 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 re- advertised"
Comment 1.11 comment via website dated 20/10/17 which states, "1, Fees. Amendments ... "The right to waive fees does not apply to plans or information which has been sought to CORRECT INACCURACIES or to make the application capable of being considered. Your e.mail of 16/10/17 to G Hall is quite clear that the original plans were inaccurate & you have used the words update & replace? Therefore you must levy the £80. I see from the various e.mails that you are in constant telephone contact with Ginny Hall, what is the content of the phone calls & why are these not recorded? The timings of responses are usually within minutes of each other? As an example you have not listed my latest response? Please note AGAIN that you are acting with no LEGAL POWERS & I put you on notice to have this application BE REFUSED".
Comment 1.12 e-mail received 21/10/17 which states, "please see below the " part" letter i have received today to be added to my submission, of problems "in the air" with all these metres" : antennas : etc etc etc etc... We understand that the Manx gas and electricity companies may be approaching the occupiers of properties with a view to installing "smart metres". We are informed tgat they can be a health risk due to something to do with electro magnetic fields and we do not want them installed in our premises".
7.0 ASSESSMENT Land Use Zoning
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/00776/B Page 8 of 10
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
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/00776/B Page 9 of 10
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.
8.0 CONCLUSION 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: o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
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
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/00776/B Page 10 of 10
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