DEC Officer Report

Applicant: Sure (IOM )Ltd Proposal Erection of a 15 metre telecommunication pole with associated equipment cabinets and fencing Site Address Vacant Plot Woodbourne Lane And To Rear Of 7 - 11 Woodbourne Villas Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3LJ Case Officer : Mr S Butler Site Visit: Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 01.07.2021

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Prior to the development hereby approved being bought into use, the parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans (as amended by condition 3) and retained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interests of highway safety.
• C 3. No development shall commence until details of the surfacing of parking and manvoeuvring areas, ensuring that there is no gravel within 6 metres of a vehicular entrance onto a public highway, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and thereafter retained as such. Reason: in the interests of highway safety.
• C 4. No development shall commence until details of both the hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. These details shall include, as a minimum, where applicable; planting plans; planting schedule; means of enclosure;

boundary treatments; hard surfacing materials; and an implementation programme.

The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.

Any tree or shrub which dies or is removed within 5 years of being planted shall be replaced. Reason: to ensure that the hard and soft landscaping is provided and retained.

• C 5. No lighting may be installed within the site and no fans may be installed at the site with a noise output higher than as defined in the application details (supporting statement).

Reason: to ensure that the application takes place in accordance with the approved details, in the interests of local amenity.

• C 6. In the event of the mast and cabinets erected under this approval becoming redundant, they must be taken down and removed from the site within 6 months of the cessation of the use.

Reason: To ensure that any redundant infrastructure is removed and to comply with Strategic Plan Infrastructure Policy 3.

• C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department of the colour of the pole (including shroud) hereby approved and the development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with these details and retained as such thereafter.

Reasons: to control the colour of the pole and shroud in the interests of minimising impact on visual amenity and the character of the Conservation Area.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to comply with Strategic Plan (2016) Infrastructure Policy 3. Although the proposal does not fully comply with those policies that seek to protect the Conservation Area and residential amenity, given the lack of alternative suitable sites, the fact that the proposed site is currently derelict land and the wider support for provision of telecommunications infrastructure, on balance the proposal is supported.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans/information all date stamped as having been received 21/04/21 unless indicated otherwise:

• - Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines - received 18.12.20
• - Location Plan (IOM_52/010 Issue C)
• - Site Plan (IOM_52/011 Issue E)
• - Site Layout (IOM_52/012 Issue E)
• - Site Elevation (IOM_52/013 Issue E)
• - Equipment Cabinet Plan & Elevations (IOM_52/014 Issue A) - received 18.12.20
• - Compound Elevations (IOM_52/015 Issue B)
• - Perimeter Timber Fencing Elevations (IOM_52/016 Issue B)
• - Supporting Statement dated 06.11.20 (received 18.12.20) _______________________________________________________________

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:

• o Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management
• o Department for Enterprise

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do not relate to planning considerations:

• o Communications and Utilities Regulatory Authority (CURA) as they declined to comment

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties SHOULD be given Interested Person Status as they are all within 20 metres of the site and have raised relevant issue in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status 2020 and they are 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 4(2):

• o Ancrage, Tennis Road (C35), Laurel Dene, Tennis Road (C41)
• o 46 Alexander Drive (C45),
• o 9 Woodbourne Villas, 40 Alexandra Drive, also owner of Woodbourne House, 38 Woodbourne lane (C1, 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1), Woodbourne House (C2) - owns 9 Woodbourne Villas and 38 Woodbourne House.
• o 6 Woodbourne Villas, 34 Alexander Drive (C13), 7 Woodbourne Villas (C18), 8 Woodbourne Villas, Alexander Drive (C10), 10 Woodbourne Villas (C17), 12 Woodbourne Villas, 46 Alexandra Drive (C5), 5 Woodbourne Villas, Alexandra Drive (C51)
• o 6 Selbourne Drive (C22), 8 Selbourne Drive (C6), Cherry Trees, 10 Selbourne Drive (C24), St. Aubyn, 14 Selbourne Drive (Comment 19 - 01.02.21)

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties SHOULD NOT be given Interested Person Status as they have not explained how land within their

• ownership/occupation which is within 20 metres from the proposed site might be impacted on in relation to relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C and 2D of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status 2020 and 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 4(2):
• o 23 Alexander Drive (C46), 26 Alexander Drive (C52), Roslyn House*, Alexander Drive (C31), Carran Dene, Alexander Drive (C34), 18 Alexander Drive (C28), Apartment 2, 22 Alexander Drive (C37)
• o 5 Albany Road (C53)
• o 6 Berkley Street (C36), 26 Berkley Street (C38), 11 Berkley Street (C39), 7 Berkley Street (C44)
• o 9 Brunswick Road (C21), 13 Brunswick Road (C7), 19 Brunswick Road (C48 and 50), 11 Brunswick Road (C54), 17 Brunswick Road (C55), 19 Brunswick Road (C43)
• o 1 Colden Lane (C4), 2 Colden Lane, Albany Road (C16),
• o The Cottage, Colden Road (C40)
• o 9 Hawarden Avenue (C57)
• o 8 Queens Terrace (C3), 17 Queens Terrace (C27)
• o 8 Sartfell Road (C42 and C47)
• o 1 Selbourne Drive (C12), 2 Selbourne Drive (C8), 4 Selbourne Drive (C9), 16 Selbourne Drive (C15), 7 Selbourne Drive (C23), Dilkoosha, 13 Selbourne Drive (C30), 15 Selbourne Drive (C33)
• o Ivydene, 3 Tennis Road (C26), Arragon Properties, Arragon House, Santon, (C34) - has 24 tenants at Tennis Road who live close to the mast, plus 3 houses with planning approval close to mast (not specified), 30 Athol Street (owns flats at 14-16 Tennis Road),

• o 18 Westminster Terrace (C25)
• o The Loop, Woodbourne Lane (C14)
• o 18 Woodbourne Square (C29)
• o 1 Woodbourne Villas, Alexander Drive (C20), 3 Woodbourne Villas, Alexandra Drive (C49),
• o 140 Woodbourne Road (Comment 11)
• o Local MHK (C56)

*It is not clear where this property is located; however the response does not in any case raise relevant issues to be afforded IPS.

It is recommended that the following organisation 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 4(2):

• o The Isle of Man Victorian Society - as they have not explained how land within their
• ownership/occupation which is within 20 metres from the proposed site might be impacted on in relation to relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C and 2D of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status 2020.

________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AS THE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION IS CONTRARY TO VIEWS BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND CONTRARY TO SUBSTANTIAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND AS REQUIRED BY 2(1)(A) AND 2(1)(B) OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE STANDING ORDERS NO.2021/04.

0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 This application was considered by the committee on the 28.06.21 and deferred for a site visit.

At the 28.06.21 the Case Officer amended the recommendation to add a condition in relation to colour of the mast, and this has now been added to this report. The remainder of this report is unchanged. Any further representations received or any other information will confirmed via verbal update to the committee.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is an open piece of land which is backed onto by a number of dwellings, some of which front onto Tennis Road, some onto Alexander Drive (Woodbourne Villas) and the nearest units are 1-8, Tennis Court which sit 5.5m from the proposed boundary fence. There are also some light industrial/commercial uses in the area including some next to the site off Woodbourne Lane. - 1.2 The site is generally open, it formerly having accommodated a large building which is since been demolished. The application form states that the current use of the site is vacant, although it appears to be used in part as informal parking. - 1.3 Planning approval was granted for the conversion of an office to residential use at Woodbourne House which lies adjacent to the site, to the east. - 1.4 The site lies within the Selborne Drive Conservation Area. The Woodbourne Hotel is around 65m to the south east of the site. This is described in the Conservation Area Appraisal as one of the "most distinctive and distinguished buildings in the Area". - 1.5 The site is not within an area identified at risk of river or tidal flooding, although some surface water flooding is shown on the roads around the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a 15 metre tall telecommunications pole with 6 antennas within a shroud and 1 dish (at 10m high) on a concrete base. The elevations (52/12 Issue E) shows the South East Elevation and the mast being significantly taller (over 6.5 metres) than the existing buildings behind. Also proposed is associated equipment cabinets (0.6 x 0.48 x 0.9m high). - 2.2 These are proposed to be within a 4.4 x 5 metre compound edged with 1.9 metre high blockwork wall with rendered finish to external face and brick capping, and with timber faced access door on steel frame. This compound would be in the middle of the site. There is proposed a 1.2 m high estate type fencing with 3.6m wide access gate to replace the existing site boundary (the plans indicate the final details will depend on supplier so may need to be conditioned in the event the application is supported). - 2.3 Part of the site would be surfaced with gravel as hard standing to provide 4 no. parking bays and manoeuvring area. The remainder of the site would be landscape, including the planting of 3 No. cherry blossom trees - 2.4 The application proposes:

• - no change to site levels;
• - new/amended electricity and telecommunication services;
• - no works to existing trees

2.5 The supporting statement notes that the applicant has been awarded an operator's license by the Communications Commission, that the applicant endeavours to install equipment on existing infrastructure to minimise visual impact and where this is not possible will provide a statement to justify site choice. This site was chosen because:

• - it is at the highest point in this part of Douglas to maximise coverage (it is indicated that if this is approved Sure would not intend to submit any further applications or prior-approval applications in the area of Selbourne Drive/Woodbourne Lane for the foreseeable future, as this would fully meet the needs of residents in this area);
• - it is vacant, in a poor state of repair ("shabby") and so fencing and maintenance could improve visual appearance;
• - immediate views (in particular 5 Tennis Road and 6, 7 and 8 Woodbourne Villas) exist but could be partially screened from adjacent buildings/pavement by the proposed fencing (and currently view the site which as noted above may be improved by maintenance etc.);
• - it is screened by existing buildings on 4 sides (it explains that the ground site is only visible from limited areas and the pole would be visible from approximately 18 metres of Tennis Road and 8 metres of Selbourne Drive, with some other views with the top of the mast visible noting that it would not be possible to view the pole in conjunction with any element of importance named in the Conservation Area Appraisal);
• - it is noted that the existing presence of LED lighting columns which could be considered out of character for the Conservation Area; and
• - the cooling fans are low enough volume to not be heard more than 3 metres away.

2.6 The statement sets out the need for the development within the area noting not only no prospect of 5G but lack of reliable 2, 3 or 4G. They argue it should be considered as critical national infrastructure. They note that as an operator they are obliged by their license to provide a level of service to residents and are unable to do this in the area around Woodbourne Road. They have been looking for a site for 12 years, and this is the best technical solution identified. They note that given increased demand they have deployed a temporary mast on Woodbourne Road to "prevent the collapse of the network in the area". Without this they argue that working from home in the area would not have been possible and the ability to reliably call 999 would be undermined. The proposed site is estimated to be of potential benefit to up to 800 homes. It is also noted that the site would reduce load (congestion) on other, heavily congested, sites thus improving service to customers in other parts of Douglas.

2.7 An ICNIRP Conformity Declaration is provided. - 2.8 The application was submitted and advertised. In light of comments received and discussion with the Case Officer, the applicant submitted revised proposals which were fully readvertised for a further 21 days (to 21st May 2021), including writing to those that had commented. The applicant's supporting statement for the amendments notes that the changes include:

• - moving the mast into the centre of the plot
• - proposing a wall instead of a green mesh compound
• - clearly defined parking/manoeuvring area, remainder of site landscaped
• - boundary fencing estate style not higher close board wooden fencing

2.9 Further to questions posed by the Case Officer they provide responses in relation to:

• - reason for fewer current issues is deployment of temporary solution
• - alternative locations considered (Woodbourne Road follows ridge line, so away from this would reduce coverage, to the North West of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area is the Selbourne Drive Conservation Area, to the South East is already in foot print of a mast and for few streets outside Conservation Areas that would provide coverage no potential sites identified). Have looked at All Saint's Church, Trinity Church, Manx Youth Band Building and Masonic Hall, Woodbourne Road and due to either technical issues, site specific constraints or owner reluctance not able to progress.
• - Only existing mast site is on the roof on the Manx Telecom Telephone Exchange in Dalton Street and structure not height and explains issues with replacing single site with multiple lamp-post installations
• - Why mobile coverage is required in addition to fibre.
• - That lease option is for whole site so not only part can be used (although proposal now covers whole site)
• - Reasons for locating mast on edge of site and implications of moving to centre in terms of views
• - Explanation of why no impact on emergency services networks
• - Explanation of why no concerns re: trespass
• - Confirmation that site would not be lit
• - Confirmation of noise output from fans (25 - 37 dB) - similar to a fridge

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 AREA PLAN FOR THE EAST (2020)

• 3.1.1 The site is allocated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East (2020).
• 3.1.2 In relation to Telecommunications, the Area Plan sets out the following desired outcome (7.4), "Modern, high-speed and effective communications networks are integrated into new design schemes as a matter of course". The following policies are considered particularly relevant.
• 3.1.3 Utilities Proposal 3 states (in part), "…The telecommunications system must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the relevant telecommunications servicing agency and should be consistent with any approved strategy, policy or plan for the provision of advanced telecommunications infrastructure, including fibre optic technology. It is expected and required that all new development be connected at the best standard possible".
• 3.1.4 Utilities Proposal 4 states, "Reticulated services for water, gas, electricity and telecommunications should be provided in shared trenching and routes to minimise construction costs and land allocation for underground services. These must also provide for any necessary service or connection junctions and pits as appropriate to the relevant type of network and service being provided".

• 3.1.5 Telecommunications Proposal 1 states, "Telecommunications Proposal 1 New developments should: a) Make provision for fibre optic cables directly to each dwelling or commercial premises. b) Within Comprehensive Treatment Areas (see Chapter 13), be phased so as to ensure that telecommunications structures are installed efficiently and will avoid ongoing disruption to site foundations. c) Design facilities so as to be able to host equipment from more than one operator, and that such sharing be encouraged. d) Demonstrate that the proposal has taken into account radio networks in particular those used by the emergency services (TETRA)".
• 3.1.6 The supporting text states,

"7.13.1 Telecommunications The Isle of Man needs to have modern, high-speed and effective communications networks to continue to be internationally competitive.

• 7.13.2 In order to ensure business connectivity and enhance the provision of local community facilities and services, this Plan supports the expansion of telecommunications networks across the Island. This includes radio networks (TETRA, 4G and forthcoming 5G telephone and data services and point-to-point data links) as well as fixed networks (copper, co-axial and fibre-optic cable networks).
• 7.13.3 The implementation of 5G high speed telephone and data radio network across the Island is being explored. This will put the Isle of Man at the cutting edge of telecommunications systems technology, and ensure a competitive edge for our businesses. This will require the installation of a new network infrastructure.
• 7.13.4 As technologies improve, it is neither possible nor appropriate to determine or predict a certain physical location of network infrastructure. What works for one type of network will not work for another. Certain provision of high quality reliable telecommunications services is essential to the economic connectivity and vibrancy for the Isle of Man.
• 7.13.5 In order to optimise the existing network, replacement and upgraded systems should seek to utilise existing infrastructure, however, this is not a reason to discourage or prevent investment in different types of networks and network infrastructure. It is recognised that the operational requirements of telecommunications networks and the technical limitations of the technology may make this impossible. Where new network sites are required, it is further acknowledged that height and clear line-of-sight are essential to make a radio telecommunications network operate. Therefore design considerations must be creative and ensure that support structures can be shared by different operators".

- 3.2 STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)

• 3.2.1 The Strategic Plan includes the objective, "To ensure that the Island is well served by modern telecommunications, without compromising the protection of our landscape".
• 3.2.2 Infrastructure Policy 3 (IP3) states: "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".
• 3.2.3 Development within a Conservation Area is generally required to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area as set out in Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man). This reflects the requirements of S.18 of the TCPA. 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". The content of the 2003 Woodbourne Road Conservation Area Appraisal is noted.
• 3.2.4 General Policy 2 sets out general 'Development Control' considerations and states development will be supported which "….

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; … (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;

• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; … (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them …"

• 3.2.5 The following policies are also considered to be relevant

• - Strategic Policy 1 promotes the use of previously developed land
• - Environment Policies 4 and 5 seek to prevent development which would adversely impact on protected species and their habitat.
• - Environment Policy 22 seeks to prevent noise and light pollution
• - Environment Policy 24 and appendix 5 set out the circumstances when an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required
• - Environment Policy 43 promotes the regeneration of run-down urban and rural areas
• - Business Policy 1 promotes the growth of employment opportunities

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 4.1 The National Telecommunications Strategy (2018) promotes the development of infrastructure, including new investment and competition. In relation to planning it sets out a goal of, "Telecommunication infrastructure is straightforward to install and maintain for the benefit of the Islands residents and businesses". It sets out some principles including "Current and future infrastructure should be shared where appropriate, ensuring the maximum use and reuse of resources to optimise delivery potential" and "Planning policy should explore the use of code powers (for telcos) and mandatory mast sharing where possible". - 4.2 The conclusion states, "To be recognised as a place that is at the forefront of innovation and fully connected the Island must embrace the opportunity before it. An opportunity to deliver sustainable subsea infrastructure and on-Island ultrafast fibre broadband to every home and business. High value, high quality telecoms at an affordable cost in a well-regulated regime, delivered in a partnership approach". - 4.3 The Digital Inclusion Strategy (2016) sets out how government and partners from the public, private and voluntary sectors will increase digital inclusion. This means helping people become capable of using and benefiting from the internet and digital technologies.

4.4 It is noted that there has been some debate in Tynwald recently in relation to Telecommunications and a review of the Permitted Development. To clarify, this report has been drafted on the basis of existing legislation and policy and having regard to duly made representations submitted in relation to this specific application. - 4.5 The Department's Residential Design Guide (2019) is not designed to inform telecommunications development, but does contain some helpful guidance on how to categorise rooms and windows of residential properties when considering issues of outlook etc.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 5.1 The Town and Country Planning (Telecommuncations) Development Order 2019 sets out different processes by which proposals for the installation of telecommunications equipment can be considered. In some circumstances, development can be considered to be "permitted" if it is to be installed by or on behalf of a licensed operator and complies with particular criteria. If a licensed operator cannot comply with these requirements, they can apply for Prior Approval if the development complies with another set of criteria. If the installer cannot comply with these requirements, or if the installer is not a licensed operator, a full, detailed planning application must be sought and granted before the development may lawfully be installed. - 5.2 The developer sought prior approval under 20/00257/TEL for the installation of a 15m tall Shrouded Monopole including antenna and 5 small cabinets along with a 1.8m tall wooden fence. The installation was intended to improve mobile telephone coverage for residents and businesses in the area. The pole was to be erected on the ground and will be approximately 7m taller than the nearest buildings according to the drawings submitted. This was refused on 22.04.2020. - 5.3 The Order sets out that the Department must only consider the following factors in determining an application"(a) the visual and noise impact on residential amenity;

• (b) the visual impact on the character and appearance of the area;
• (c) the impact on any designated conservation area; and
• (d) the impact on any designated watercourse".

5.4 The Order also sets out that,

"The Department must only approve an application if it considers that the development would not have a material negative impact in relation to any of the factors specified in sub-paragraph

(7)" and that, "The Department must adopt a precautionary approach and in cases of doubt it must assume a material negative impact".

5.5 It was noted that the Order makes no provision for the erection of fencing. As such, this element of the application would need planning approval unless it complies with any element of the Town and Country (Permitted Development) Order 2012. As the site lies within a Conservation Area, there is no Permitted Development for the erection of fencing. As such, planning permission is required for this element of the scheme and Prior Approval cannot be granted for it. - 5.6 The report concluded,

"The Order requires consideration to be given to a number of factors and in this case it is considered that it cannot be determined that the development would not have a harmful impact on the visual impact on residential amenity; the visual impact on the character and appearance of the area; the impact on any designated conservation area and thus fails to accord with Schedule 7 a (part), b and c and Schedule 8 of the Order. As the Department is recommended to adopt a precautionary approach (Schedule 9) this application is recommended for refusal".

5.7 An application for use of the site as a car park was refused 16/01298/C at appeal for reasons relating to highway safety and the scale which would be harmfully out of character with the local area and uses and thus contrary to GPc and g (character and appearance of the area and amenities of local residents) and EP22 (pollution - vibration, odour or light pollution) and EP35 (Conservation Areas).

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS The following sets out a summary, the full responses can be viewed on-line. - 6.1 LOCAL AUTHORITY

• 6.1.1 Douglas Borough Council (Consultation 1 - 18.01.21) sought to gauge views of residents and ask for the comments of the Registered Buildings Officer. They then comment (Consultation 2 - 20.01.21) which reiterates these points. Consultation 3 (21.01.21) asks if Public Health are being consulted. Consultation 5 (16.02.21) states that the Council unanimously resolved to object to the applications. The response indicates that:

• - It does not comply with General Policy 2 in relation to respecting the site or buildings close to the site and having an adverse impact on the amenity of those living close to the site with an outlook onto the site.
• - It does not comply with Environment Policy 35 as it does not enhance the Conservation Area, noting it is hard to see how it would enhance the area and may prejudice the development of the rest of the site.
• - The Council requested details of the applicant's exploration of mast sharing and this has not been provided, which is contrary to the National Telecommunications Strategy (2018). They also suggest that the Planning Authority should do more work to promote mast sharing.
• - The applicant has failed to justify a strategic national need that cannot be met by mast sharing or other locations.
• - The presence of an unauthorised mast at the Masonic Lodge is irrelevant and should be removed irrespective of this application.

• 6.1.2 In light of comments from the public re: LED lights, DBC were contacted on 04.03.21 as to why planning approval was not sought for the lights and why they were considered appropriate for a Conservation Area and they responded (Reply 6 - 15.03.21) to state the lanterns were installed in 2017-19, are standard throughout the area and energy efficient/low maintenance. They further responded (Consultation 9 - 23.03.21) to set out the legislation which they believed meant they did not need planning approval and also to clarify that they had not carried out public consultation prior to the installation of the masts, but that they had not received any complaints either. They note that the provision of public lighting is a public safety issue which they do not feel can be compared to telecommunications.
• 6.1.3 DBC requested additional time to comment on the amended plans (Consultation 11 -

• 05.05.21 and 12 - 13.05.21) and provided a full response (Consultation 12 - 18.05.21) where they resolved to object because:

• o Does not respect character of area/adversely affect amenity of local residents, will clearly prejudice further development of the land (Contrary to GP2)
• o Does not enhance conservation area (EP35)
• o Council would welcome discussion on use of streetlights (even if this results in more cabinets) and is not aware of any discussions regarding the use of the Council's existing streetlights, so applicant has not demonstrated why this option is not preferred.

- 6.2 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

• 6.2.1 The DEFA Registered Buildings Officer (Consultation 4 - 28.01.21) makes the following comments,

"The application site is located within the Selbourne Drive Conservation Area, The conservation area character is mainly suburban comprised of larger terraces and detached properties dating to the late 19th and early 20th century, the housing stock has architectural quality and shows

the aspirations of Douglas expanding as a town during the Island's tourism boom of the same period. This part of the conservation area also contains lanes which housed stabling, outbuildings, and warehouses all hidden away from the principal street frontages, but necessary elements of a busy town. Such sites and the lanes themselves still contribute to the character of the conservation area. The application site, is a gap site once housing buildings that formed part of this back lane character. In its current state, the application site being vacant and having lost its original buildings does not make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. The applicant has undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed 15 metre mast upon the conservation area. I see no reason to disagree with their findings as to the extent of the visual impact, I do however disagree with their conclusion that the proposals will have no impact upon the character or appearance of the conservation area. It is my view that the proposals will have a visual impact upon the conservation area and that impact will be a limited visual impact upon the areas identified in the supporting statement. This will overall result in a minimal impact upon the character and appearance of the Selbourne drive conservation area as a whole. Ideally mitigations should be sought to address this impact as much as possible, could the height of the masts be reduced or their appearance altered. However given the limited nature of this impact, I do not object to the proposals and if further mitigations are not possible then it would be for the Planning Officer to consider the benefits of the proposals weighed against the harm caused to the character and appearance of the conservation area".

• 6.2.2 DEFA (Ecology) were contacted in light of comments from the public in relation to bats. They responded (Consultation 8 - 04.03.21) to state,

"There is currently insufficient published scientific evidence on the impacts of EMF/5G on biodiversity to inform whether there are any negative effects. The Ecosystem Policy Team did look at this application and noted the comments made by some about bats in the area. However, in line with the current advice from the Bat Conservation Trust (available here) and no knowledge of an active bat roost in the immediate vicinity of the of the proposed 5g mast, we considered that a response to the application was unnecessary. If scientific research does confirm that EMF/5G does cause unreasonable harm to wildlife then we will inform the Planning Department accordingly".

• 6.2.3 The DOI (Flood Risk) (Consultation 6 - 19/02/21) indicates no Flood Risk Management Interest.
• 6.2.4 The DOI (Highways) (27/01/21) indicates do not oppose. In response to the amended plans they provided further comments (30.04.21) which state, "Highway Services maintain a do not oppose comment, but request that no gravel be placed within 6m of the public road, Woodbourne Lane to prevent it tracking onto the highway".
• 6.2.5 Noting the results from the public consultation and the issues raised, the Communications and Utilities Regulatory Authority, Department for Enterprise, and the Cabinet Office (Planning Policy and Public Health) were consulted on 04.03.21 to seek clarification of a number of points (these e-mails from the Case Officer are published on-line), requesting a response by 21.05.21.

• o The Communications and Utilities Regulatory Authority responded (Consultation 10 17.03.21) and clarified that it is not within the Authority's remit to comment on applications given its role as the economic regulator for the telecoms sector.
• o Public Health confirmed (05.03.21) that there are no issues of concern regarding this current application.
• o The Cabinet Office (Planning Policy) have not responded at the time of writing (01/06/21) and so it is assumed that they have no comments to make.
• o The Department for Enterprise provided a detailed response (below).

• 6.2.6 In response to the Case Officer's question, "Is there a "strategic national need" for additional telecoms capacity in the area (many of the objections suggest there is no existing problem)? " DfE Commented:

"Based upon what Sure have said, there is a considerable cost in developing a new cell-site such as this and therefore the assumption must be that there is a good commercial rationale for building it. The area is densely populated and is a busy area day and night with dense housing and heavy passing vehicular traffic. Anecdotally (which is the only method we at DFE can gauge) coupled with the arguments for developing this cell site in Sure's application there would appear to be sound reasons for the application and therefore it could be said that there is a "strategic national need" for the additional capacity. The comments that argue against this may seem valid to those individuals expressing their views. However, the residents in this area who state the service is acceptable are no doubt unaware that they are being provided with their coverage from the temporary mast at Masonic Hall. The new facility would of course replace that one so to a large extent I assume the residents are unaware of the true coverage issues that Sure are citing in their planning proposal. The temporary mast is taking pressure off other Sure infrastructure in the area. If the mast at Masonic Hall is removed and Sure cannot provide a replacement, local residents and businesses will notice a reduction in the quality of service in this area of Douglas".

• 6.2.7 In response to the Case Officer's question, "Is the proposal consistent with other (i.e. non-planning) approved telecommunications plans/policies/strategies?" DfE commented:

Whilst a full 5G deployment is still some years away it has to be said that in order to achieve the goals detailed in the National Telecom Strategy there does need to be a build out of mobile infrastructure. Initially this mast would serve to relieve pressure on other cell-sites that are Sure's but undoubtedly its location would be important to the further development of the mobile infrastructure for years to come and this could include 5G in future years. We therefore think that the proposal is consistent with the above statement. We know that data usage doubles every few years and this requires additional capacity in the network.

• 6.2.8 In response to the Case Officer's question, "I would be grateful for any comments you may wish to make about the application, but in particular would welcome your view on: 1. Do you have any evidence to confirm whether or not there is an existing issue with telecommunications provision within the area and, if so, to quantify the extent of those issues?

• 2. Are there any other Telecommunications Policies/Plans/Strategies that are relevant and do you have any comment to make about whether or not consider the proposal to be consistent with the two plans above (and any other plans)?" DfE Commented:

1. We don't have evidence of issues with telecoms provision within the area as DfE do not have access to information relating to network traffic etc. Anecdotally we are aware of coverage issues and coupled with the fact a temporary mast has been supporting the network coverage in the area would lead us to believe the issues Sure have cited in their application are legitimate. 2. We consider the proposal is consistent with plans above.

- 6.3 CONTRIBUTORS

• 6.3.1 The following made comments in relation to the application as originally submitted:

• o 46 Alexander Drive (C45), 23 Alexander Drive (C46), 26 Alexander Drive (C52), Roslyn House, Alexander Drive (C31), Carran Dene, Alexander Drive (C34), 18 Alexander Drive (C28), Apartment 2, 22 Alexander Drive (C37)
• o 9 Woodbourne Villas, 40 Alexandra Drive, also owner of Woodbourne House, 38 Woodbourne lane (C1, 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1), Woodbourne House (C2) - owns 9 Woodbourne Villas and 38 Woodbourne House.
• o 1 Woodbourne Villas, Alexander Drive (C20), 6 Woodbourne Villas, 34 Alexander Drive (C13), 7 Woodbourne Villas (C18), 8 Woodbourne Villas, Alexander Drive (C10), 10 Woodbourne Villas (C17), 12 Woodbourne Villas, 46 Alexandra Drive (C5), 3 Woodbourne Villas, Alexandra Drive (C49), 5 Woodbourne Villas, Alexandra Drive (C51)

• o 5 Albany Road (C53)
• o 6 Berkley Street (C36), 26 Berkley Street (C38), 39 Berkley Street (C39), 7 Berkley Street (C44)
• o 9 Brunswick Road (C21), 13 Brunswick Road (C7), 19 Brunswick Road (C48 and 50), 11 Brunswick Road (C54), 17 Brunswick Road (C55), 19 Brunswick Road (C43)
• o 1 Colden Lane (C4), 2 Colden Lane, Albany Road (C16),
• o The Cottage, Colden Road (C40)
• o 8 Queens Terrace (C3), 17 Queens Terrace (C27)
• o 8 Sartfell Road (C42 and C47)
• o 1 Selbourne Drive (C12), 2 Selbourne Drive (C8), 4 Selbourne Drive (C9), 8 Selbourne Drive (C6), St. Aubyn, 14 Selbourne Drive (Comment 19 - 01.02.21), 16 Selbourne Drive (C15),

• 6 Selbourne Drive (C22), 7 Selbourne Drive (C23), Cherry Trees, 10 Selbourne Drive (C24), Dilkoosha, 13 Selbourne Drive (C30), 15 Selbourne Drive (C33)

• o Ivydene, 3 Tennis Road (C26), Arragon Properties, Arragon House, Santon, (C34) - has 24 tenants at Tennis Road who live close to the mast, plus 3 houses with planning approval close to mast (not specified), Ancrage, Tennis Road (C35), Laurel Dene, Tennis Road (C41), 30 Athol Street (owns flats at 14-16 Tennis Road)
• o 18 Westminster Terrace (C25)
• o The Loop, Woodbourne Lane (C14)
• o 18 Woodbourne Square (C29)
• o Local MHK (Ann Corlett) asked questions and sought to be kept updated (C56)

• 6.3.2 The following issued were raised in response to the initial consultation:

• o Outlook of residents, especially those backing onto site (including from inside looking
• out of windows from 1st/2nd floor into site and over fence) and potential loss of sunlight.
• o Views would be wider given mast is higher than adjacent houses
• o Discouraging redevelopment of rest of this site (either as public open space, garages or employment) and other vacant land in area
• o Property Values
• o Negative Impact on Conservation Area of both mast and fence (potential for graffiti and loss of open feel)
• o Negative Visual Impact/doesn't fit with the area
• o Health Concerns (including stress/worry) - noting lane is well used, including by children and close to existing facilities
• o Lack of pre-consultation

• Lack of evidence of other options (inc. fibre sharing with MT, mast sharing etc.), or

• other sites - Park Road or Site of temporary mast (latter is either better or worse and should also be removed) or Governors Hill duck pond), previous application at redundant All Saints Church withdrawn
• o Lack of evidence of need (no existing problems)
• o LED lights don't have approval so no precedent
• o Bat Colony (Quarterbridge Road?)
• o Incompatibility with land use zoning (residential);
• o Noise/Vibration concerns from the fans
• o No Environmental Impact Assessment provided
• o Highway Safety - construction and maintenance
• o Setting of Precedent for further masts and no existing concerns with signal property.
• o Applicant only refers to the Woodbourne Hotel as property of note but other buildings are worthy of protection also
• o Lack of independent technical information
• o Potential for children to trespass and climb on the mast

• 6.3.3 One letter of support (140 Woodbourne Road - Comment 11) in response to the initial consultation, "As a local Internet business owner operating in the area, I strongly support improving internet communications, especially via 5G. It is important to have additional connection mechanisms, e.g. able to use 5G if other broadband connectivity is down or slow,

• plus this will be extremely useful when working on the go. Relationship to site: Close to the site (please elaborate)".
• 6.3.4 The following commented in response to the re-consultation on amended plans:

• - 2 Colden Lane (C16.1)
• - 9 Woodbourne Villas, 40 Alexandra Drive (and owner of 38 Woodbourne Lane and adjacent plot) (C1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6)
• - Smith Taubitz Unsworth Advocates (on behalf of 1 Selbourne Drive) (C12.1)
• - 6 Woodbourne Villas (34 Alexander Drive) (C.13.2)
• - 9 Brunswick Road (C21.1)
• - Arragon Properties Group (owners of property at Tennis Road) (C32.1)
• - Carran Dene, Alexandra Drive (C34.1)
• - Ancrage (C35.1)
• - 9 Hawarden Avenue (C57) - new rep.
• - 8 Woodbourne Villas (C58)
• - 8 Selbourne Drive (C6.1)
• - 13 Brunswick Road (C7.2 and 7.3)
• - 2 Selbourne Drive (C8.1)
• - 4 Selbourne Drive (C9.1)

• 6.3.5 Issues raised:

• - General reiteration of previous points/objections
• - New position is more visible from both surrounding area and some of adjacent houses/flats (with main windows looking onto plot), photographs no longer valid - should show view from houses adjacent
• - Impact on Conservation Area (including potential to set a precedent for other out of character development)
• - Light pollution from security lights
• - Roads too narrow for access, introduction of parking spaces increases risk of obstruction of narrow lane
• - Site could be better used for infill (undermines use of brownfield sites for development) and also discourages redevelopment of other land (e.g. nearby - 10 ft from mast - back into warehouse)
• - Still insufficient analysis of alternative sites (or use of fibre), demonstration of needs etc.
• - Why is it not acceptable in grounds of Masonic Hall but acceptable here?
• - Impact on house prices/discourages investment
• - Health Concerns (including anxiety) and pollution from electromagnetic radiation (including impact on wildlife)
• - Changes to proposal suggest being pushed through at all costs with no consideration for residents, lack of consultation etc.
• - Procedural points (given changes should be withdrawn and re-submitted)

- 6.4 OTHER ORGANISATIONS

• 6.4.1 The IOM Victorian Society (Consultation 7) submitted detailed comments strongly objecting to the application (22/02/21) noting:

• - concerns with accuracy of the site description;
• - the site was part of an estate laid out for residential purposes and although it has been used for a series of non-residential uses they are not aware that these have conflicted with residential use
• - the site is within a Conservation Area, which adjoins another Conservation Area which adjoins another
• - They note the policies about Conservation Areas which have been quoted in other responses, and that these are used to negotiate replacement windows and doors which better fit the area, although may cost the applicant more.

• - They raise concerns that the Registered Building Officer has not objected and has indicated that the Planning Officer should weigh up the balance of benefit and harm, considering that the RBO should have the major say.
• - They note the potential betterment to signals but consider this commercial betterment for the applicant and others not necessarily living in the Conservation Area.
• - They note masts shaped to look like trees in other areas, and suggest such a mast in the grounds of the Masonic Hall would be less obvious and appears to be working satisfactorily.
• - They note that there is reference to mast sharing from some objectors and this should be taken into account.

• 6.4.2 VICSOC provided additional comments in relation to the amended plans (Consultation 13

• 28.05.21). They reiterate their view that the proposal should enhance the Conservation Area and does not, noting the trees would not completely hide the mast (and comparing this to someone pretending to be Father Christmas). They suggest a mast disguised as a tree in the grounds of Woodbourne House would be better. They question the level of detail to discount alternative sites, including their suggestion of a fake tree.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

- 7.1 KEY ISSUES

• 7.1.1 The policy context, including the recent Area Plan which has been through Public Inquiry and approved by Tynwald, provides broad policy support for the improvement of telecommunications infrastructure. However, the key issues are whether this specific proposal is acceptable in this specific location weighing the planning balance of all material considerations. This raises a number of questions, as set out below.
• 7.1.2 In relation to information and justification:

• o Should an EIA be required and is there a lack of independent technical assessment? (Environment Policy 24)
• o Is the site within a "sensitive landscape" and is so is there a "strategic national need" for additional telecoms capacity in the area? (Infrastructure Policy 3)
• o Could the provision be located elsewhere (outside the Conservation Area) or delivered in a different way (fibre or mast sharing)? (Infrastructure Policy 3)
• o Does the proposed mast facilitate future mast sharing (Utilities Proposal 1c)
• o Has it been demonstrated that the proposal has taken into account radio networks in particular those used by the emergency services (TETRA) (Utilities Proposal 1d)

• 7.1.3 In relation to Previously Developed Land and Regeneration, does the proposal:

• o make best use of previously developed land (Strategic Policy 1)
• o improve an existing run-down area (Environment Policy 43)
• o avoid prejudicing the development of the rest of the site/other sites? (General Policy 2)
• o Allow for removal of the equipment if no longer required? (SP Infrastructure Policy 3)

• 7.1.4 In relation to specific impacts, what is the impact in terms of:

• o the Conservation Area (Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 35, PPS 1/01)
• o the character of the area (including TAPE predominantly residential zoning and General Policy 2)
• o local amenity (visual amenity/outlook for residents, light and noise) (General Policy 2, Environment Policy 22)
• o safety - including highways (access and parking) and potential for trespass (General Policy 2)
• o biodiversity (bats) (General Policy 2 and Environment Policies 4 and 5)

• 7.1.5 Other concerns in relation to:

• o Property Values
• o Health Concerns

• o Lack of consultation
• o Setting a precedent

- 7.2 INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION

• 7.2.1 Environment Policy 24 indicates that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required in certain circumstances (Appendix 5) - the current proposal is not of a type listed, nor is it considered to be of a comparable scale to the general types of development listed. The policy also gives discretion to ask for EIA in other circumstances (paragraph 8.18.2 - major developments, environmentally sensitive locations, unusually complex effects). Although the proposal is within a Conservation Area and has raised a number of issues, it is not considered that when reviewed against the criteria listed that it is of such a scale/level of complexity that an EIA is required.
• 7.2.2 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. 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?
• 7.2.3 Visual Impact/Impact on Conservation Area is considered below. As noted previously there is clear policy support for investment in telecommunications infrastructure. The information from the applicant and support from DfE are noted, as is the fact that the existing level of provision is in part via an unauthorised temporary mast. It is considered that, on balance, there is a demonstrated need for increased telecommunications provision in the area.
• 7.2.4 There has been some, albeit limited, consideration of alternatives. However, there are a limited number of potential sites given the built-up nature of the area and the significant coverage by Conservation Areas. It appears unlikely that the same level of coverage for the area could be provided by a single mast located outside the area. The potential for a mast in the grounds of the Masonic Hall on Woodbourne Road has been identified as an alternative site, although as this is a prominent Registered Building it is not unreasonable that this has been discounted at this stage. The potential for a very different provision (by lamp-posts) does not appear to be technically feasible, or at least not without such works that may themselves have undesirable visual impacts. The applicant has explained why fibre optics are not an alternative but an additional form of provision. On balance it is considered that there has been consideration of alternatives.
• 7.2.5 In terms of mast sharing, the applicant has explained why this is not possible. It could also be asked whether the applicant has considered future-proofing the proposal to allow for mast sharing in the future. As a general point it would appear that a mast which allows for shared use would need to be larger, and as such have potentially greater visual impact. It is not considered unreasonable that the applicant has not made a mast proposed within a Conservation Area larger than it needs to be.
• 7.2.6 The applicant has taken into account radio networks in particular those used by the emergency services (TETRA).

- 7.3 PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND AND REGENERATION

• 7.3.1 The site is previously developed land (having previously been the site of a building) and is currently derelict (has no formal lawful use). A previous application for a car park failed due to access concerns, and this may be an issue for other uses - although no other proposals have been forthcoming. The proposal would entail the use of the whole site (part for the compound/parking and part as open space) and therefore could not be said to prejudice the development of the remainder of the site (as consultation response suggested).

• 7.3.2 The site appears to be used informally for parking and is in a poor state, detracting from the appearance of that part of the Conservation Area. It could be argued that it is of limited public view (being enclosed by building) although the route through the area which runs next to the site (and use of this route as highlighted in consultation responses) is noted. Whilst the mast itself has raised concerns, the proposal would bring the site back into beneficial use and ensure that it was tidied up and maintained.
• 7.3.3 It has been suggested that the development would discourage investment in adjacent plots, although with no firm proposals for these plots, and previous concerns raised with access to the site, it is difficult to place much weight on this argument as it is not clear exactly what would be developed or when and to what extent this would be acceptable in any case.
• 7.3.4 In the event that the application is supported, a condition could be attached to secure removal of equipment in the event that it was no longer required.

- 7.4 SPECIFIC IMPACTS

• 7.4.1 The applicant's original supporting statement contains an explanation of where the mast can be viewed from (pages 5-8) and the additional statement explains the changes to these impacts of moving the mast (response to question 7) considering the impact, particularly when viewed from nearby streets such as Woodbourne Lane, Tennis Lane and Selbourne Drive. The mast will undoubtedly be visible and would not be a welcome feature within the wider Conservation Area, and as such would detract from it and be contrary to those policies which seek to protect and enhance the area. However, the more localised impact from adjacent to the site has to be weighed against the benefit from tidying up the site and so it is judged that in terms of the Conservation Area this would be a more neutral impact. In making this judgement the comments from the Victorian Society are noted, however the proposal is clearly not trying to disguise what the mast is, but to design the rest of the site and supporting works to be as sympathetic as possible. The comments from the Registered Buildings Officer are also noted. Overall, impact on the Conservation Area does weigh against the application but not to such an extent as to justify refusal in isolation and so must be weighed up as part of the overall balance.
• 7.4.2 The impact on the character of the area is similar to the above. As part of this it is noted that the applicant has referenced more modern street lamps and also that the lawfulness of these has been challenged. This is a separate issue, but it is clear that DEFA as the Department responsible for planning applications has not made a decision that such street lamps are acceptable and it is also clear that Douglas Borough Council, in installing them, is clearly of the opinion that some level of more modern infrastructure within a Conservation Area is acceptable. However, neither of these points are considered particularly important in determining the current proposal.
• 7.4.3 There is also a question about whether telecommunications infrastructure is acceptable within predominantly residential areas, although the policies within the Area Plan appear to specifically encourage such infrastructure within new developments and so in broad terms it would appear to indicate that it is and comes down to site-specific issues. Overall, in terms of impact on overall character, a similar judgement is reached as for the impact on the Conservation Area.
• 7.4.4 In terms of local amenity, the noise impacts would be minimal and no lighting is proposed. The main impact would therefore be on the outlook from the residential properties which are adjacent to the site. For many of these properties whilst it will have some impact on outlook from the rear windows, although whether or not this would be acceptable is influenced by the potential for main living rooms and views to be from front facing windows. It is understood that there are some flats which have main windows overlooking the site. Whilst it is not ideal for primary windows from primary habitable rooms to look towards a telecommunications mast, this is balanced by the fact that the mast is not of such mass as to

• completely block views and also that current views are of a derelict piece of land (see commentary above). Overall, impact on local amenity is considered to weigh against the application but not sufficiently to justify refusal on this ground alone.
• 7.4.5 Given the comments from highways and the applicant, there are no material safety concerns in relation to highways/access or community safety (trespass). The comment in relation to the potential for parked vehicles to block narrow access lanes is noted, although the proposal does provide dedicated parking/manoeuvring space so it is difficult to see how this would weigh against the proposal.
• 7.4.6 The concerns raised in relation to bats/protected species are noted, and the comments from DEFA (Ecology) are relied upon in response to these.

- 7.5 OTHER ISSUES

• 7.5.1 Concerns in relation to property values are noted, but are not a material planning consideration.
• 7.5.2 Concerns in relation to health issues (both in terms of the impact of the technology and the impact of anxiety) are noted. 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. 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. The Director of Public Health's advice is that health concerns should not prevent the erection of telecommunications infrastructure as long as the application is accompanied by a certification that complies with ICNIRP (the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection). Accordingly, there is no reason that the application should be refused on health grounds.
• 7.5.3 In terms of consultation, there is no requirement for applicants to carry out consultation. The proposal has been advertised in accordance with the legislation and a significant number of comments received. The applicant has revised the proposal in light of comments, and it has been re-advertised and further comments have been received.
• 7.5.4 In terms of setting a precedent, each application should be considered on its merits and it is considered unlikely that there would be an identical proposal for telecommunications development on derelict land within the area.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 There is a clear need for investment in telecommunications infrastructure and the area plan sets out not only an allowance but an expectation that this will form part of new residential developments. There are a limited number of options for the provision of improved provision in this area and the chosen site seeks to limit wider visual impact and also has the benefit of reusing derelict land. Within the bounds of what might practicably be achieved, the proposal is considered to maximise positive impacts and minimise negative in terms of the design/layout of the site.

8.2 The proposal will be visible from both adjacent to the site and from the wider Conservation Area. The former views will be more significant, but the impact of them must be weighed against the benefits of bringing derelict land back into use and the localised benefit of that. The amenity impact on adjacent residents in terms of outlook, especially where they have no alternative outlook, does weigh against the application. There are no material concerns overall in relation to health, biodiversity, traffic or safety.

8.3 Overall, and on balance, the proposal is supported subject to conditions.

- 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

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 above who should be given Interested Person Status

9.3 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 Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 12.07.2021

Signed : S BUTLER Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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.

Planning Committee Decision 12.07.2021

Application No. : 20/01538/B Applicant : Sure (IOM )Ltd Proposal : Erection of a 15 metre telecommunication pole with associated equipment cabinets and fencing Site Address : Vacant Plot Woodbourne Lane And To Rear Of 7 - 11 Woodbourne Villas Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3LJ

Head of Development Management : Mr S Butler Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

Updates were presented verbally to the committee, including summarising five additional representations and additional information from the applicant. In light of these comments, the recommendation was amended in relation to the reason for approval so that the term 'derelict land' be replaced by 'previously developed land which is in an untidy state'. The committee approved the application as per the amended recommendation.

The recommendation in relation to Interested Person Status was also amended in light of the most recent reps, noting that:

• - the Freemasons' Hall would need to be assessed for IPS, but as they had not made reference to the impact of the proposed development on their site that, irrespective of distance, they should not be afforded IPS;
• - the owner/occupier of 12 Woodbourne Villas (46 Alexander Drive) was already recommended for IPS;
• - the owner/occupier of Carran Dene, Alexander Drive was already recommended for not being afforded IPS, and the latest comments did not change that;
• - the owner/occupier of the Loop, Woodbourne Lane had not been previously recommended for IPS but in light of the latest comments they had explained how they felt they would be affected (and were within 20 m) and so should be afforded IPS
• - two other properties within 20m had not previously been recommended for IPS (3 Woodbourne Villas and 4 Selbourne Drive) as the 20m just clipped the edge of their property, but having looked at this again it was recommended that on balance they should be afforded IPS. The committee approved the amended recommendation in relation to Interested Person Status.