176952

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      19/00300/B                                     Page  1  of  9

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 19/00300/B Applicant : Sure (IOM) Ltd Proposal : Erection of tree mast to replace existing tree mast Site Address : Sure Mobile Site IOM - 047 Tower Farm Mountain Road Ramsey Isle of Man

Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken : 09.04.2019 Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.04.2019 __

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. No part of the structure hereby approved shall be more than 18 metres from adjacent ground level.

Reason: To limit visual impact in the interests of the character and appearance of the Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance

C 3.The existing mast shall be removed and the ground restored to its original condition within 60 days of the mast hereby approved becoming operational.

Reason: To ensure that the site does not appear as a cluster of structures and to limit the visual impact.

C 4. In the event that the mast hereby approved is no longer required, it shall be removed from the site within 6 months of it no longer being in use, and the ground restored to its condition prior to the installation of the mast and associated equipment.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

Plans/Drawings/Information:

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      19/00300/B                                     Page  2  of  9

This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped as received on 13th March 2019:

o IOM_047/010 Location Plan o IOM_047/011 Existing Site Layout o IOM_047/012 Proposed Site Layout o IOM_47/013 Existing Elevations o IOM_47/014 Proposed Elevations o IOM_47 Planning Application Supporting Statement

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):

o 23 Bemahague Avenue, Onchan o Apartment 3, Eskdale Apartments, Queens Drive West, Ramsey o 13 Fairfield Avenue, Ballachurry, Onchan o Flat 7, Elfin Court, Vernon Court, Ramsey o Briarswood, Ballanard Road, Douglas x 2 o 9 Windsor Road, Ramsey o 31 Beaumont Road, Ramsey o 16 Cronk Cullyn, Colby o 9 Stonecorp Grove, Douglas o 1 Victoria Buildings, Parliament Street, Ramsey o 16 Erin Lane, Port Erin o 59A Derby Road, Douglas o 7 Woodburn Square, Douglas o 5 Dreeym JAllyn, Ramsey o 21 Hillcroft Green, Douglas o 162 Lake View, Mount Murray X 2 o 1 Grosvenor Road, Douglas o Thurot Cottage, Bride o Moaney Woods Farm, Lonan Church Road, Laxey o 6 Scarlett Close, Castletown o 23 Waterloo Road o Ballerghy, Lherghy Cripperty, Union Mills o 37 Stanley Terrace, Peel X 2 o 43 Farmhill Meadows, Douglas o Mountain View, Gardeners Lane, Ramsey

as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

It is recommended that Public Health should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations.

__

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      19/00300/B                                     Page  3  of  9

Officer’s Report

THIS PLANNING APPLICATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION DUE TO THE LEVEL OF OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL.

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is Sure telecoms site 47 on Tower Farm in Maughold. The site is approximately 100m west of the Albert Tower, a prominent structure in the skyline above Ramsey. The Sure site is 210m north of the Mountain Road. As existing, there is an equipment cabin and associated fencing, and a Cypress tree mast, 13m in height. Directly adjacent to the site is another telecoms site with a 14.5m tree mast. These masts contain various antennas and dishes. The site is adjacent to an existing natural conifer plantation. The existing tree masts are visible from Ramsey and the Mountain Road.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the smaller 13m mast with another Cypress tree mast of 17m, with 8 antennas and 3 dishes. The new mast would sit 8 metres to the east of the existing 13m one which would be decommissioned and removed from the site once the proposed mast is commissioned. The replacement mast would sit roughly level with the larger tree mast on the site, higher up on the hill. Whilst the mast itself would measure 17m, the total height including 'foliage' would be 18m.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The proposal site is shown as an area zoned for development within the 1982 Development Plan and lies within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLCVSS). It also bounds a Plantation.

3.2 The following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IOMSP) are considered to be relevant.

3.3 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

3.4 Strategic Policy 4: "Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance."

3.5 General Policy 3 (in part): "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services".

3.6 It is important, in any rural area, to consider Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      19/00300/B                                     Page  4  of  9

need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

3.7 Environment Policy 2 is also considered given that the site is within an AHLCVSS:

"The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential."

3.8 Of particular relevance to this proposal is Infrastructure Policy 3: "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."

3.9 Additionally, whilst not planning policy, the Isle of Man Government Digital Inclusion Strategy 2016-2021 is a material consideration. It aims to decrease 'digital exclusion' on the Island and ensuring full and effective connectivity is one method for achieving this.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning history on this site relates to past installations of telecoms equipment: o 06/02164/B - Installation of a 13m high imitation cypress tree mast with associated equipment cabin and meter cabinet (Permitted) o 08/01213/B - Installation of a 14.5m high imitation tree mast with associated equipment cabinets and compound area (Permitted) o 09/01808/B - Installation of a 6.5m pole with two antennas (Permitted) o 15/00397/B - Installation of antenna on an existing tree mast, installation of a 1.8m satellite dish and installation of two wall mounted antennas (Permitted)

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Garff Commissioners have commented the following, "members request that the specification of the proposed tree masts is investigated to ensure that plastic branch/leave materials do not shed onto the surrounding field. This has been an issue with the previous mast." (06.04.19).

5.2 DoI Highways Services have stated that they have no interest in the application (11.04.19).

5.3 Public Health commented (02.05.19) that in terms of evidence for health impacts of RF EMF, from a Public Health perspective the accept the evidence based recommendations of ICNIRP in respect of exposure thresholds. This application has a Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP guidelines and they have no concerns to raise regarding impact on health. They are aware that ICNIRP is currently reviewing the exposure guidelines. However, they have not been advised by Public Health England (or any other specialised health protection agency) that there is any new evidence which should lead to our taking a more cautious approach to the current guidelines whilst the update is awaited.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      19/00300/B                                     Page  5  of  9

5.4 DEFA (Ecology) have been consulted but have not commented at the time of drafting - any comments received after the agenda will be presented verbally to the committee.

5.5 Comments of objection have been received from the following properties: o 23 Bemahague Avenue, Onchan (04.04.19); o Apartment 3, Eskdale Apartments, Queens Drive West, Ramsey; o Flat 7, Elfin Court, Vernon Court, Ramsey (05.04.19); o Briarswood, Ballanard Road, Douglas (05.04.19, 07.04.19); x 2 o 9 Windsor Road, Ramsey (05.04.19); o 31 Beaumont Road, Ramsey (05.04.19); o 16 Cronk Cullyn, Colby (06.04.19); o 9 Stonecorp Grove, Douglas (06.04.19); o 1 Victoria Buildings, Parliament Street, Ramsey (07.04.19); o 16 Erin Lane, Port Erin (09.04.19); o 59A Derby Road, Douglas (09.04.19); o 7 Woodburn Square, Douglas (09.04.19); o 5 Dreeym JAllyn, Ramsey (09.04.19); o 21 Hillcroft Green, Douglas (09.04.19); o 162 Lake View, Mount Murray (09.04.19); x 2 o 1 Grosvenor Road, Douglas (10.04.19); o Thurot Cottage, Bride (09.04.19); o Moaney Woods Farm, Lonan Church Road, Laxey (11.04.19); o 6 Scarlett Close, Castletown (12.04.19); o 23 Waterloo Road (14.04.19); o Ballerghy, Lherghy Cripperty, Union Mills (13.04.19); o 13 Fairfield Avenue, Ballachurry Park, Onchan (5.04.19);

5.6 Concerns raised are with the use of 5G technology and its potential impacts on the health of both humans and wildlife. Objections call for further research to be carried out into the impact of 5G technology prior to allowing it on the Island. 9 Stonecorp Grove's comment relates to the 'shedding' of artificial greenery leaving large amounts of plastic litter in the countryside.

5.7 Further comment objecting on the grounds of claimed health risks from 5g was received from 37 Stanley Terrace, Peel. The comment summarised a number of articles calling into question the safety of 5G technology and ask that any 5G use from the mast is restricted (08.04.19, 09.04.19).

5.8 43 Farmhill Meadows, Douglas have objected on the basis of both health concerns and also the visual impact of the proposed mast on the landscape (12.04.19).

5.9 Mountain View, Gardeners Lane, Ramsey object, stating that the proposed tower would be an eyesore and may harm both trees and ecological interests in the area (11.04.19).

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 In assessing this application, the following issues have been identified: o the need for the proposal; o the visual impact on the countryside and when viewed by the public; o impact on health; and o impact on wildlife.

6.2 The assessment of need for the proposed mast 6.2.1 It is considered that efforts to enhance and increase the mobile connectivity of the Island are strategically encouraged, through the Digital Inclusion Strategy and Infrastructure Policy 3 of the IOMSP.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      19/00300/B                                     Page  6  of  9

6.2.2 The application included a written justification for the need for the new mast, summarised as follows: o The proposed mast is an upgrade of the existing mast, as the existing one can no longer support the demands of the local community in Ramsey. o The site occupies a unique topographical position which would require multiple smaller urban sites to replicate its coverage. o The failure to develop this mast will impact the ability to support 5G development in the north. o Ramsey has the highest network congestion on the Sure network, which will be partly alleviated by development at Ramsey Cottage Hospital, however this will not be sufficient. o The current mast is at its load capacity and showing signs of its age on an exposed site. o The proposed mast is taller which would improve 'lines of sight' into Ramsey, and able to support twice the number of antennae. o Other sites were considered but would require more substantial development

6.2.3 It is therefore accepted that there is a need for increased and improved mobile signal in the area, and that an additional mast in the Ramsey area would meet the increasing demand and improve internet connectivity and mobile phone reception in the north of the island. The proposal is therefore considered to be in compliance with Strategic Policy 1(b&c), General Policy 3(e) and Infrastructure Policy 3.

6.3 The visual impact of the proposal 6.3.1 The replacement mast will have fairly minimal visual impact on the site itself as no major alterations are proposed to the total footprint of the site. It is important to have regard to the visual impact when viewed from public vantage points, the main ones being the Mountain Road, and Ramsey. This is particularly important as the site lies within an Area of High Landscape Value.

6.3.2 From the Mountain Road the existing mast is visible alongside the Albert Tower for a stretch of the road 1-2 miles outside of Ramsey. Whilst not a striking feature of the landscape, the tree mast is noticeable and its replacement is likely to be more noticeable given the increase in height. It is not regarded however, that this would detract from the countryside views of the area, from the perspective of the road, the mast would sit roughly the same height as the neighbouring one in the adjacent site.

6.3.3 From Ramsey Town the mast would be visible, as the current one is. However there is a tall tree line on the ridge of the hill - dominated by Albert Tower seen to the left. The mast existing, and the one proposed, would be noticeable from the town centre but would not be an eye catching feature of the landscape or backdrop. Its visibility would limited for anyone not actively looking for it. Overall, the mast would be somewhat apparent but not many a significantly increased margin and within an acceptable level.

6.3.4 Overall, the visual impact would increase somewhat with a taller and more prominent tree mast. However, the use of a tree mast design rather than a standard trellis design would help to blend the mast somewhat with the plantation below, and would match the height of the existing nearby tree mast when viewed from a distance. On balance, the visual impact would be acceptable and in compliance with Environment Policies 1 and 2.

6.4 Health 6.4.1 In general terms, credible health concerns are capable of being a material planning consideration. However, the advice from Public Health is noted and on this basis the concerns raised by objectors in relation to human health are not considered to constitute a reason for refusal.

6.5 Nature Conservation

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      19/00300/B                                     Page  7  of  9

6.5.1 Given the nature of the works and the site, it is not considered that there are concerns in relation to these elements and nature conservation sites or protected species. The broader concerns raised in relation to wildlife impacts are noted and DEFA Ecology have been consulted. However, it is not considered that these concerns constitute a reason for refusal.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, it is regarded that the mast would comply with Infrastructure Policy 3 in providing a necessary balance between the need for new communications systems and the impact on the overall environment. No adverse impact on the nearby Plantation or on the Area of High Landscape Value is expected, as the footprint would not differ once the existing mast is removed and the land righted to its original state. On balance, the moderate visual impact would be outweighed by the above and the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

7.2 Regarding the comments relating to the safety of 5G technology: The time and effort taken by concerned residents on the Island is noted. However, noting the advice from Public Health and that an ICNIRP Declaration of Conformity has been provided for the mast, concerns in relation to human health and/or wildlife are not considered to be a reason for refusal. The key planning considerations relate to the mast itself (visual impact primarily) - as set out above.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 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.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Permitted

Committee Meeting Date: 13.05.2019

Signed : Mr N Salt Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report and condition were required

YES/NO See below

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      19/00300/B                                     Page  8  of  9

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 13.05.2019

Application No. :

19/00300/B Applicant : Sure (IOM) Ltd Proposal : Erection of tree mast to replace existing tree mast Site Address : Sure Mobile Site IOM - 047 Tower Farm Mountain Road Ramsey Isle of Man

Planning Officer : Mr Nick Salt Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

Following the Planning Committee Meeting of 13.05.19 the following an additional 5th condition was recommended regarding maintenance of the area.

Conditions of Approval

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. No part of the structure hereby approved shall be more than 18 metres from adjacent ground level.

Reason: To limit visual impact in the interests of the character and appearance of the Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance

C 3. The existing mast shall be removed and the ground restored to its original condition within 60 days of the mast hereby approved becoming operational.

Reason: To ensure that the site does not appear as a cluster of structures and to limit the visual impact.

C 4. In the event that the mast hereby approved is no longer required, it shall be removed from the site within 6 months of it no longer being in use, and the ground restored to its condition prior to the installation of the mast and associated equipment.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      19/00300/B                                     Page  9  of  9

C 5. The owner of the mast must ensure that the site and surrounding area are kept clear of any parts of the tree mast hereby approved which may be 'shed' during its lifetime, and that the mast is regularly maintained.

Reason: In the interests of reducing the environmental impacts of the mast.

Plans/Drawings/Information

This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped as received on 13th March 2019:

o IOM_047/010 Location Plan o IOM_047/011 Existing Site Layout o IOM_047/012 Proposed Site Layout o IOM_47/013 Existing Elevations o IOM_47/014 Proposed Elevations o IOM_47 Planning Application Supporting Statement

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.