Officer Report

Application No.: 18/01192/B Applicant: Sure IOM Ltd Proposal: Installation of a five metre flagpole mast with associated equipment Site Address: Andreas Parish Church St Andrews Church Andreas Village Isle of Man IM7 4HH Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken: 30.11.2018 Site Visit: 30.11.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.01.2019 _________________________________________________________________

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. All equipment associated with the mast must be designed and installed in full compliance with the requirements of the radio frequency (RF) public exposure guidelines of the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) as stated in the Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines for Sure Site IOM 52 (St Andreas Church). Reason: In the interests of public health and safety, in accordance with Strategic Policy 4 (c).
• C 3. The mast hereby approved shall not project more than 2.1m from the top of the church tower, and shall not exceed 100mm in diameter.

Reason: To ensure that the mast closely resembles a flagpole and to reduce visual impact in the interests of the character and appearance of Andreas Parish Church.

• C 4. The mast shall be painted white and retained as such for as long as it is in place.

Reason: To ensure that the mast closely resembles a flagpole in the interests of the character and appearance of Andreas Parish Church.

• C 5. Within 1 year of the mast no longer being in use, it shall be removed and the church tower restored to its condition prior to the installation of the mast and associated equipment.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of Kirk Andreas Church and the surrounding area.

Plans/Drawings/Information:

This permission relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received 13th November 2018:

• o IOM_52/010 - Site Location Plans
• o IOM_52/012 - Site Layout
• o IOM_52/013 - Site Elevation
• o IOM_52/014 - Site Elevation _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of 'Thie Garey, Andreas Road' 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) - as 'Thie Garey, Andreas Road' is 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 Operational Policy.

It is recommended that the Andreas Gliding Club 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) - as they have not made comments as the owner/occupier of land (but as an occasional user) and therefore do not comply with paragraph 2A of the Operational Policy.

The Civil Aviation Authority have not been assessed for Interested Person Status as their communication simply clarifies that they do not intend to comment. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site is St Andrews Church, Kirk Andreas. The church was rebuilt in the late 1800's with the 1867 tower altered back in the 1940's from a height of 36.6m to its current height of 20.2m. The tower originally featured a flagpole at the top. It is a traditionally styled church featuring stone construction. The tower is a prominent feature in the surrounding landscape, adjoining the north side elevation of the main building. - 1.2 The surrounding area is semi-rural, with fields surrounding the church site, 400m south east of Andreas Village. The church is set back from Andreas Road by over 200 metres, and to the north of Bernahara Road by around 100 metres.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a 5 metre flagpole mast and equipment cabin for telecommunications purposes. The mast would be located on the top of the church tower and constructed of steel, protruding 2.1m above the bell tower height. - 2.2 The proposed dish associated with the mast would be located below the parapet level of the tower, with other equipment also kept below this level. The mast would be accessible

• via the existing roof hatch located on the tower, with energy supply also taken from the church.
• 2.3 The proposed mast and associated equipment aims to improve coverage in Kirk Andreas Village, as the current mobile coverage is deemed inadequate by the provider.
• 2.4 The application is accompanied by a certificate of compliance with the World Health Organisation's ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure. (ICNIRP - "International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation".)

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The proposal site is situated on the site of an Ancient Monument and area of grounds of a large establishment (Kirk Andreas Church) as designated by the 1982 Development Plan. - 3.2 As the site is not within an area designated for development, the following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IOMSP) apply: - 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 underused 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;

• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and

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 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 Considering the proximity of the proposal to an Ancient Monument site, Environment Policy 40 is important: "Development will not be permitted which would damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site or an Ancient Monument or the setting thereof." - 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 The only previous application on record for the site was for the erection of signage, which was permitted (06/01587/D). - 4.2 Planning approval was granted (06/02089/B) for a Mobile Mast at Andreas Air field, which was, according to the applicant statement, not constructed due to trees in the area and projected poor performance.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The DEFA Registered Buildings Officer was consulted on the proposals and raised concerns surrounding a lack of information on the appearance of the mast - to which the applicant then provided more examples from elsewhere and further information on how the mast may look. The Officer has since stated that, provided the specifications were followed as proposed, they have no objection to the proposal as it would look very similar to a flagpole (18.12.18). - 5.2 Andreas Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application (11.12.18). - 5.3 The owner/occupiers of Thie Garey, Andreas Road - adjacent to the site - have made the following comments: "We are the nearest residents to the proposed mast which will be in our direct line of sight. We would like assurances on the following points:

• 1 That the installation will comply with the International Commission on Nonionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines on public exposure to radio frequency emission levels and that the appropriate certificate will be issued. We could not see this stated anywhere in the application.
• 2. That the installation will actually look like a flagpole and not a radio mast. The application only states that it is "envisaged" that the installation will "resemble" what is a somewhat blurred picture.
• 3. That once installed the mast will be regularly audited to ensure it still complies with the current emission guidelines as per the recommendation of the Council of Ministers Report ?A Review into the Health Impacts of Mobile Phone Masts in the Isle of Man?" (14.12.18).

5.4 Due to the height of the proposal and the proximity to Andreas Airfield, the Isle of Man Civil Aviation Administration was consulted and confirmed that, as the airfield is privately owned - they were not obliged to comment on the proposal (19.12.18). - 5.5 Andreas Gliding Club were consulted as they use the airfield on a regular basis, they responded that it was not foreseen that any issue would arise from the height of the proposed mast (22.12.18). - 5.6 The Department of Health and Social Care Public Health Directorate confirmed in writing on the 22 October 2018 that their Director (Dr Henrietta Ewart) considered that they do not need to receive notifications of planning applications for any mobile masts, as long as their certification applies to ICNIRP' (the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection).

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 In assessing this application, the following are the key considerations:

• o The need for the proposal
• o The visual impact on the area
• o The impact of the mast on the Church

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 through policy such as Infrastructure Policy 3 of the IOMSP. This specific area has been chosen as part of a screening process and addressing a weak signal spot in the Andreas area.
• 6.2.2 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 Kirk Andreas area would meet the demand and improve internet connectivity and mobile phone reception in the north of the island.
• 6.3 The visual impact of the proposal on the surrounding area

• 6.3.1 The key issue to consider therefore is whether the proposed location of the mast on the church tower is appropriate and acceptable in planning terms. The visual impact when viewed from nearby roads - particularly from Bernahara Road and Andreas Road is important as the church building and tower are clearly visible at a distance across relatively level agricultural ground.
• 6.3.2 The church grounds are set back from the roads, with the closest being the Bernahara Road at a minimum distance of approximately 100m from the tower. From the centre of Andreas Village, the church is partially restricted from view by the area of private woodland surrounding Andreas Rectory.
• 6.3.3 Whilst the presence of a mast on the tower would not improve the appearance of the church tower when seen from these public thoroughfares, its visual impact would not so great when compared with a freestanding mast - to render it unacceptable in terms of visual impact when viewed from outside the church grounds.
• 6.4 The impact of the mast on the church

• 6.4.1 The church grounds contain an ancient monument in the Andreas Cross Slab - this would not be impacted by the proposal. The character of the church building itself is recognised as of significant importance given its historical nature and visual prominence in the area.
• 6.4.2 The mast would not be so permanent and imposing a feature as to warrant a reason for refusal in this regard. It is noted that flagpoles are a relatively common feature on church towers such as these, the mast resembles the appearance of a flagpole and would not be a highly unusual feature. The presence of a mast on the church would not enhance its appearance, but is regarded as having a lower impact visually than a free standing mast.
• 6.4.3 Following discussions with the DEFA Registered Building Officer, the Officer noted that the proposal would appear very similar to a flagpole in terms of appearance, colour, height and diameter, and that very similar proposals had been granted planning approval in the UK in recent years.

6.5 Other considerations

• 6.5.1 In terms of health issues associated with a telecommunication mast, the Isle of Man has no specific guidelines in how to deal with such concerns. However, guidance in the United Kingdom (since replaced with less specific guidance) expressly advised that where a proposed telecommunications installation conforms to the recommendation of The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones ("The Stewart Report") and the guidelines for the public exposure set by The International Commission On Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), then the Local Planning Authority should have no concerns with regard to health and safety issues. Additionally, the mast would be sited a distance away from residential dwellings.
• 6.5.2 The points raised by the residents of Thie Garey have been considered and the case officer is satisfied that;

• 1. The installation will comply with the International Commission on Nonionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines on public exposure to radio frequency emission levels - as stated in the Planning Application Supporting Statement. A condition will be attached requiring that the equipment to be installed conforms with these guidelines.
• 2. That the installation will actually look like a flagpole and not a radio mast, as discussed in 6.4.3.

• 6.5.3 The impact on nearby Andreas Airfield was considered given the height of the proposal. The Civil Aviation Authority responded that as the airfield is privately run, they have no obligation to provide comments on the proposal. The Andreas Gliding Club are regular users of the airfield and were consulted for their views on 19.12.18, no issues were regarded likely..
• 6.5.4 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.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, the proposed mast would closely resemble a flagpole in terms of appearance, and its siting on the church tower would not unacceptably detract from the church's overall character. In considering all other potential impacts above, and the relevant planning policies outlines, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. - 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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 08.01.2019 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.