Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00397/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00397/B Applicant : Arqiva Ltd Proposal : Installation of antenna on existing tree mast, installation of 1.8m satellite dish and installation of two wall mounted antennas Site Address : Tree Mast Site Tower Farm Mountain Road Ramsey Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 29.04.2015 Site Visit : 29.04.2015 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The red line on the submitted details actually comprises two separate parcels of land: one rectangular, one square, both located in the north-western corner of field no. 624528 and situated approximately 100m away from the Registered Albert Tower. Within the rectangular site, which is by far the largest, is an existing telecommunications compound comprising a cabin and an equipment cabinet, while being set down into the landscape and surrounded by gabion baskets. The smaller, square site includes a faux-cypress mast along with its hardstanding. The imitation foliage is much thinner in reality than the submitted details suggest, with much of it appearing to have fallen out.
1.2 To the north of the application site is Lhergy Frissell Plantation and to the south of the application site are agricultural fields. There is a public footpath to the north of the application site.
2.0 PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the installation of antenna on the existing mast, as well as the installation of a satellite dish and two wall-mounted antennae within the compound. The satellite dish has a 1.8m diameter and would sit adjacent the cabin, proud of the existing compound, and higher than the existing antennae therein. The wall-mounted antennae would be installed on the cabin itself.
2.2 It is understood that the equipment proposed relates to the improvement of existing Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) radio service.
2.3 The application has been provided with an ICNIRP (International Commission on Non- Iodising Radiation Protection) Certificate.
3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3.1 The site is not zoned for development and it is also an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance in the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) 1982. The Albert Tower as noted is a Registered Building.
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00397/B
Page 2 of 7
3.2 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Infrastructure Policy 3.
3.3 General Policy 3 states (in part) that: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
(g) Development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is more reasonable and acceptable alternative".
3.4 Environment Policy 1 reads: "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: "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:
(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential."
3.6 Infrastructure Policy 3 reads: "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."
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 The following applications have been granted permission at the Albert Tower or within the vicinity.
o 08/01213/B - Installation of a 14.5m high imitation tree mast with associated equipment cabinets and compound area - approved 24.09.2008. o 06/02164/B - Installation of a 13m high imitation cypress tree mast with associated equipment cabin and meter cabinet - approved 19.03.2007 o 00/01277/B - Erection of monopole with antenna (replacement floodlight column design), cabin and ancillary development - approved 21.02.2001 o 00/00074/B - Erection of replacement antenna, location of two dishes and replacement roof - approved 08.06.2000.
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00397/B
Page 3 of 7
The most recent application, which referred to the mast lying within the current application site, carried the following comments from the case officer:
"If it is considered that the mast does affect the character of the landscape or the setting of the registered building is affected 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.
"As to national need, the UK Government announced in 2006 the intention to switchover from analogue to digital television, which will be taking place from 2008 to 2012. The Isle of Man is due to switchover in the 2nd quarter of 2009. There is a requirement to provide the necessary infrastructure to ensure areas are covered by the new digital transmissions. There is a national need for this mast which outweighs the primary consideration of protecting the character and quality of the landscape.
"However the test of essential location is a different test, the applicant has considered other locations to provide coverage within the area but have been either discounted for visual impact reasons, affecting the setting of the registered building and coverage reasons. It is considered the applicant has demonstrated the essential need of this location."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
5.1 The Director of Public Health is usually consulted on such proposals. She advised on 5th May 2015 as follows: "These applications comply with all current relevant guidance (ICNIRP etc) and, therefore, on the basis of available evidence do not represent any threat to population health. There are no exceptional features relating to these applications which would indicate further health impact assessment to be required". The nearest houses are roughly 150m distant.
5.2 Maughold Parish Commissioners objected to the proposal on 7th May 2015, commenting that the existing tree mast is poorly maintained and that this situation should be addressed prior to any new permissions being granted. They note that the fake 'branches' have become scattered over the field in which the site sits and are unsightly and a potential hazard to livestock.
5.3 In view of the site's prominence and position relative to Ramsey, the Town Commissioners were asked if they wished to comment on the proposal. They offered no objection to the proposal, instead observing that "the existing tree masts must be maintained to a reasonable standard to ensure that the visual amenity is not adversely affected in an area of high scenic value". These comments were received 16th May 2015.
5.4 The owner / occupier of 5 Summerland, Ramsey, has commented on the application (received 20th May 2015). They commended the original intention to provide a mock tree but state it is clear that a lack of maintenance has resulted in the 'trees' failing to achieve their purpose, with a number of the branches producing non-degradable litter in the fields, which could have the potential to injure grazing animals. Some mechanism should be employed to ensure that the trees' visual appearance is maintained, that they are regularly maintained and that litter emanating is removed.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00397/B
Page 4 of 7
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, 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. Therefore, the assessment relates to the extent to which the proposal is appropriate in visual terms.
6.3 The site is extremely prominent. It is adjacent to a Registered Building and views to the north of the Island are lengthy. As such, the site is sensitive to change and close attention must be paid to this. General Policy 3 only makes certain allowances for development in the countryside, although it is considered that greater weight needs to be applied to Infrastructure Policy 3 in this case. As such, it must be properly examined whether or not the proposal would meet the provisions of that policy: in the event that the proposal is judged to fail to achieve the required satisfactory balance between visual impact and the need for new infrastructure, it is to be noted that no demonstration of strategic national need has been demonstrated by the applicant.
6.4 The proposed wall-mounted antennae and also the new antenna proposed for the existing tree mast are small-scale and will not adversely affect the existing visual impression of the site. The tree masts themselves are fairly conspicuous but not for their entire height; the wall-mounted antennae would not be visible from Ramsey and would, from public views further to the south, blend into the existing man-made elements of the site.
6.5 This same would be true for the tree-mounted antenna, albeit that this would be slightly more prominent as it would increase the height of the existing antenna by 1.1m. However, as the main views would primarily be up to the site, the visual impact would be tempered by the fact that the tree mast would obscure some of the height of this. equally, views are mainly long-distance and the antennae is very narrow - it is difficult to accurately measure, but the scale plan would suggest its width is roughly 5cm - such that it would probably be inappropriate to argue it would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area.
6.6 The dish, however, would be far more apparent: its size and height above the existing compound would make it prominent and, coloured white, very visible both through the existing vegetation and also when viewed against it from the higher land to the south. However, the applicant has indicated that the dish would be a leaf green colour. With such a condition, it is considered that the dish would blend in far more readily into the background and would therefore be visually unobtrusive.
6.7 Turning to the concern regarding the loss of the 'branches', it is arguable whether the conditions requested and suggested by Local Authorities and a local resident would actually be lawful. In the first instance, there is some concern that a condition requiring the 'branches' to be re-installed would not relate to the application. Requiring regular maintenance and the collection of litter might not be considered as being related to Planning. Any condition would have to relate to only one and not both of the masts since only one of these falls within the application site.
6.8 The masts at present do look somewhat poorly maintained, and the applicant has advised that there is an intention to re-fit the branches to them. They advised on 16th June 2015 that a delivery of the 'branches' is expected on 31st August 2015 with a view to their being re-fitted the week after. They also advised that a condition requiring the branches to be re-fitted would be acceptable. In view of this, such a condition is recommended accordingly, with a requirement to that no work shall commence on site until the mast has been returned to its appearance as shown on submitted elevation drawing.
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00397/B
Page 5 of 7
6.9 In terms of the health issues of a telecommunication mast, the Isle of Man has no specific guidelines in how to deal with such concerns. However, the UK Government has produced such advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 - Telecommunications (PPG8). PPG8 expressly advises 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. It is of course important to note that the application relates to DAB radio rather than mobile phones.
6.10 The application is accompanied by a certificate of compliance with the World Health Organisation ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, and the lack of objection from the Director of Public Health is noted and welcomed.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 In view of the above, it is concluded that an objection to the proposal could not be sustained. The proposed equipment would not, with conditions, result in an adverse visual impact on the site when viewed from nearby or further afield.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 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, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o Ramsey Town Commissioners, and o The Director of Public Health.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o The owner / occupier of 5 Summerland Avenue, Ramsey.
This property is some way removed from the application site and, although the owner of the property regularly walks near the site, this in itself is not considered reason enough to grant Interested Person Status.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/00397/B
Page 6 of 7
Date of Recommendation: 16.06.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
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. Prior to any work being commenced on the site, the tree mast within the application site annotated as "15.0m High Francis & Lewis Cypress Tree" shown on submitted plan 161957-96- 100-MD003 Rev 3 (date-stamped as having been received 15th April 2015) shall have fake 'branches' installed such that it takes on the appearance as shown on the submitted plan 161957-96-151-MD004 Rev 4.
Reason: in the interests of the character and amenity of the site.
C 3. In the event of the development hereby approved becoming redundant, such development 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 form part of the grassed area.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 4. The satellite dish hereby approved shall be coloured Leaf Green (RAL 6002) within 28 days of its installation and retained as such thereafter.
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 15th April 2015: 161957-00-004-ML001 Rev 1, 161957-96-100-MD003 Rev 3, 161957-96-150-MD003 Rev 3 and 161957-96-151-MD004 Rev 4.
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.
==== PAGE 7 ====
15/00397/B
Page 7 of 7
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 17.06.2015
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed :...M GALLAGHER... Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal