Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00227/B Applicant: Department Of Home Affairs, Communications Division Proposal: Creation of a TETRA radio site comprising of a 12.2 metre mast accommodating two antennas and associated equipment cabinet Site Address: Part Of Field 234366 Cammall Farm Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 18.03.2015 Site Visit: 18.03.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a rectangular parcel of land measuring 6.50m by 3.76m located within a field on Cammal Farm and east of the TT course some 1.8km south-southeast of the centre of Kirk Michael. - 1.2 To the west is an existing monopole providing telecommunications equipment for a private company operating on the Island. The site is otherwise within an area characterised by its countryside setting, albeit that sporadic built development is in the vicinity in the form of the occasional house.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the installation of a 12m-high slimline monopole of lattice construction to accommodate two antennae at the top and provide TETRA ("Terrestrial Trunked Radio") coverage. Also proposed is an equipment cabinet measuring 1505mm x 1800mm x 1800mm, and the whole site would be surrounded by a post and wire stock-proof fence approximately 1.25m in height. - 2.2 TETRA is a system specifically designed for use by (amongst others) government agencies and emergency services, and is used on the Island by the government in respect of enabling contact to respond to emergency issues as they arise. As the applicant is the Communications Division with the Department of Home Affairs, they do not meet the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Telecommunications) Order 2013 and therefore the application must be assessed under a full planning application rather than via a 'prior approval' process that would apply were the applicant a telecommunications code system operator. - 2.3 The application has been supplemented with a Supporting Statement outlining the need for the proposed new monopole, and also explaining the reasoning behind the proposed siting in this position relative to three others in the area. The need to improve the TETRA
2.5 The application is also accompanied by a certificate of compliance with the World Health Organisation's ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure. (ICNIRP is the initialism for the "International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation".) - 2.6 The Supporting Statement includes in its Appendices emails of support for the application (prior to its submission) from both Michael Commissioners and the Head of Motorsport within the Tourism Division of the Department of Economic Development.
3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES - 3.1 The site is within a wider area zoned as "white land" on the 1982 Development Plan. It is also within an area of high landscape value. - 3.2 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2 and Infrastructure Policy 3 are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application. - 3.3 General Policy 3 states in full: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
3.4 Environment Policy 1 reads in full: "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." - 3.5 Environment Policy 2 reads in full: "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:
3.6 Infrastructure Policy 3 reads in full: "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."
4.1 Although the site itself has not been the subject of any previous planning applications, the land immediately west has as noted been the subject of applications for new telecommunications equipment. - 4.2 PA 06/02056/B sought - and gained - full planning approval for "Installation of a 15.2m high monopole mast with associated equipment cabinets and compound area". The key issue related to the impact of the proposal on the landscape given its location within an area of high landscape value. The case officer commented on this point as follows:
"In a recent appeal at Ballnalargy, the appeal inspector stated that "In an area of special landscape, this being an Area of High Landscape Value, the protection of the landscape is the primary consideration. It is therefore appropriate to consider this issue first". The inspector went onto say "the policies require in the first instance that there should be no harm to the character of the landscape not that harm should be minimised."
"In terms of consistency, the same issues apply as the site is located within an Area of High Landscape Value. The structure is an alien feature which could affect the character of the landscape. The use of the trees to screen the mast will help to blend the mast into the surrounding landscape. The applicant has carefully considered the options available and acknowledges the visual impact of a mast in an open location. The applicant has therefore decided to site the mast behind a group of trees to overcome this problem. Considering the mast is set a significant distance from the public highway and set behind a group of trees I consider the mast would be very difficult to notice and therefore I do feel the mast will not harm the character of the landscape. Furthermore I do not consider that the introduction of an additional vertical element will appear incongruous by reason of its siting, height and visual appearance within the locality.
"If it is considered that the mast does affect the character of the landscape the policies set out an exception for allowing a visually intrusive mast in a sensitive location by demonstrating strategic national need and that the location is essential."
4.3 That application was approved with the following four conditions:
C 4. In the event of the mast and equipment cabinets 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 use and the land restored back to agricultural use.
5.1 The Director of Public Health was contacted for his comments. He confirmed that he had no objection to the proposal, and commented that even if complaints are received to the proposal, the use of the system by the emergency services has no "proven harms [and] any unknown long term effects are more than balanced by the dis-benefits which the emergency services will face if this is not allowed to go ahead." His comments were received on 12th March 2015. - 5.2 Michael Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal on 6th March 2015.
6.1 Under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Telecommunications) Order 2013, permission is granted for the erection of masts under 15 metres high for telecommunication purposes. - 6.2 Telecommunication code system operators that wish to exercise this development right have to inform the Department via a prior notification procedure. This notification then gives the Department the opportunity to consider the siting and design of the proposed installation. However, as indicated in earlier, the applicant is not a telecommunication code system operator and as such the prior approval procedure / permitted development rights do not apply and full planning approval is therefore required. In this, the assessment relates to the extent to which the proposal is appropriate in visual terms having regard to the suitability or otherwise of alternative sites, the latter assessment point being one of principle and the former one of detail. - 6.3 In the first instance, it is concluded that the information submitted by the applicant is comprehensive and clear that the proposed location is the only one that is suitable for the needs for which the proposal is required. The other sites considered in the vicinity have been discounted from consideration for appropriate and reasonable reasons. More than this, the need outlined is clearly one of "national need" given the importance of providing emergency service communications and, as such, the key exemptions outlined in General Policy 3(g) and Environment Policy 2(b) are triggered. - 6.4 Turning to the detail, the assessment of the application on the neighbouring site, the key elements of which were outlined in paragraph 4.2 above, is very helpful. From the site visit it was evident that the visual impact envisaged by the case officer at that time has been realised, and the equipment is not especially apparent from public viewpoints and neither could it be judged harmful as a result. The site is well-removed from public viewpoints, with views from the nearby highway probably the most sensitive, but even this is from a distance and well-screened by existing vegetation. The addition of another, smaller, monopole would undeniably increase the visual impact of the site as a whole, but not to a degree sufficient to have a materially negative effect overall.
7.1 It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable with respect to both the principle and also the visual impact. As such, it is considered that planning approval should be issued. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation:
01.04.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval
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.
3 months of the cessation of use and the land restored back to form part of the grassed area. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
The approval hereby issued relates to the following plans and information, all date-stamped as having been received 27th February 2015: HLK/15/0108 1, HLK/15/0108 2 and HLK/15/0108 3.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 02.04.2015 Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :…………………………………….. Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed : Jennifer Chance Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown