Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00917/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00917/B Applicant : BlueWave Communications Ltd Proposal : Installation of RaDome telecommunication equipment, access track and perimeter fencing (retrospective) Site Address : Bluewave Complex Transmitter Site Carnane Transmitter Site Old Castletown Road Douglas IM4 1AF
Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.11.2021 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. No fencing shall be erected at the site other than that shown on approved plans 1576.RD1 and RD2, and whilst retained on site that fencing shall remain dark green in colour.
Reason: In the interest of reducing the visual impact of the fencing in view of its prominent location on this hillside.
C 2. Any hardcore or gravel material used to make up or maintain the access track within the application site shall be formed of local acid rock unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the heathland habitat in the area, which requires an acidic basis.
C 3. If any of the radomes are no longer required or used for the purpose stated in the application, they must be removed from site and the ground restored to its previous condition within six months of the cessation of use.
Reason: to protect the visual amenities countryside from unwarranted development.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to comply with the land use zoning in the Area Plan for the East (2020) and to be in accordance with Strategic Plan Infrastructure Policy 3. It will contribute to the wider aspirations to develop telecommunications infrastructure as set out in those plans and the National Telecommunications Strategy (2018). No unacceptable impacts, including in terms of visual amenity, landscape or biodiversity, have been identified.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00917/B Page 2 of 8
E-mail from applicant (05.10.21) and attached certificate
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
General advice was received from MWT, DfE, CURA and CABO about various issues, but not specifically about this application and formal representations were not received. The standing advice from Public Health has been noted but again no specific comments on this application have been received. It is therefore not considered that MWT, DfE, CURA, CABO or Public Health should be considered as having made written representations about this application which result in them needing to be considered for Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
PRE-AMBLE This application is an amendment to a previous application which was determined by the Planning committee, and overall proposes a lesser level of development and is in accordance with the recently adopted Area Plan for the East. It is therefore not considered that it need be put before the Planning Committee.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is part of a larger area used for various telecommunications infrastructure, with unused areas being made of scrub land. The site is accessed via a track from Old Castletown Road.
1.2 The site is potentially visible from a number of public locations but from each of these at a fairly significant distance. The closest views are from the access track to the site (from Castletown Road) which is within private ownership. Other distant public views may be found along the Old Castletown Road in the area of Quine's Hill and in and around the area of Kewaigue Hill/Cooil Road roundabout (A5/A6). However, the associated buildings structures tend to be read against the low level vegetation that is found on the edges of the site. The weather is also likely to have a considerable difference in what can and can't be seen from the views outlined.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Retrospective application for Installation of RaDome telecommunication equipment - access track & perimeter fencing. 9 white domes are installed, each c2.8 metres tall, c2.2m wide in a c11m square. 2m high palisade fencing powder coated green, 5 wide hinged gates with gravel access track c3.2m wide.
2.2 The applicant notes, "The site currently has planning approval (19/00010/B) for six (6) parabolic antennas, four (4) of which are 11.1m in diameter with a height measuring 12m off the ground, and two (2) 3.8m diameter antenna with a height of 5m above the ground and ancillary building. Instead, within this application, the nine (9) much smaller radomes will be
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00917/B Page 3 of 8
placed rather than the six (6) large antennas, which would each measure 2.8m above the ground".
2.3 Form indicates - no trees on site, not within 9m of a water course no change to site levels. The application form indicates that the number of parking spaces would remain as 4 and the application would not involve the creation of, or alteration to, a vehicular or pedestrian access to any public highway/footpaths.
2.4 Applicant also notes that the infrastructure is to support inbound and outbound connectivity to a global constellation of satellites via a new Earth Station This system will allow downlink and uplink of high capacity data, which will increase the resilience of the connectivity of the Island and also will allow Isle of Man subscribers to be able to purchase high speed satellite connectivity anywhere on the island
2.5 The applicant (BlueWave) is a fully licenced telecommunications company, with recently granted Code Powers. The applicant notes that they are planning to add to the Isle Man's digital infrastructure by:
2.6 The applicant was contacted on 03.09.21 to request a copy of the ICNERP certificate. They responded on the 09.09.21 to request clarification on what standards, directives, EU recommendations etc. the certificate would need to cover. Advice was provided by DfE (10.09.21) and also suggested that CURA be contacted for further advice. CURA responded (27.09.21) with detailed on advice, which was passed to the applicant (29.09.21). The applicant responded on 05.10.21 with the EU Declaration of Conformity.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Planning Approval 19/00010/B was for, "Extension of existing site including the erection of additional telecommunications equipment, erection of small office and welfare facility for maintenance staff, all with associated ground works, landscaping, fencing and video surveillance poles". The fencing was to be 2m high palisade fencing. The conditions attached are set out below.
C1. 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. C2. For the avoidance of doubt, the two metre-high fencing shown on approved Plan ES2-015, date-stamped as having been received 4th January 2019, shall be dark green in colour and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of reducing the visual impact of the fencing in view of its prominent location on this hillside. C3. Any hardcore or gravel material used to make up or maintain the access track within the application site shall be formed of local acid rock unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department. Reason: In the interest of protecting the heathland habitat in the area, which requires an acidic basis.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00917/B Page 4 of 8
C4. If any of the antennae are no longer required or used for the purpose stated in the application, they must be removed from site and the ground restored to its previous condition within six months of the cessation of use. Reason: to protect the visual amenities countryside from unwarranted development.
3.2 There is a separate concurrent application form the same applicant (21/00510/B) on another part of the wider Carnane Site for, "Retrospective application regarding the erection of mast and other structures in connection with PA 19/00129/B". 19/00129/B was for "Erection of a 40m high mast with supporting structure, boundary fence and ancillary buildings" and was approved subject to the following conditions.
C1. 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. C2. Notwithstanding drawing number no 19/14/A (date stamped as having been received 08/02/19) prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, Paladin fencing shall be erected around the site to a height of no more than 2.15 metres and powder coated dark green. The fencing shall be retained as such thereafter, unless required to be removed by condition 5. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. C3. The building hereby approved shall be coloured to match the existing building on the site unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. C4. No generator shall be installed on the site unless in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to protect the visual amenities of the area. C5. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department, the mast, fencing, building, generator and slab hereby approved shall be removed from the site within 6 months of the site no longer being in use.
Utilities Proposal 3 states (in part), "Utilities Proposal 3 - Electricity, Telecommunications and Gas which shall be taken to represent a policy statement on Utilities in the East
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00917/B Page 5 of 8
Telecoms 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).
4.1.2 In the assessment of 19/00129/B it was identified that the site is within a designated Wildlife Site. This is not a statutory designation, but is a site assessed for its value and given protection by the Manx Wildlife Trust, who were responsible for the designation in the first place on the basis of a clear understanding of the value of the site. This designation has not been reflected on the Area Plan for the East constraints map however, given the planning history of the site, the MWT were contacted to clarify whether the site was a Local Wildlife Site. Details of the site citation were provided by MWT (09.09.21). CABO were contacted to confirm why the site was not included in the Area Plan, and they responded (10.09.21) and noted that the MWT did not flag the site up to them as part of the area plan process but the omission from the plan should not prevent their consideration as part of planning applications.
4.2 Strategic Plan (2016) 4.2.1 It is considered that there are a number of relevant polices from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in the determination of this application. In particular, Infrastructure Policy 3 is relevant and which 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".
4.2.2 It is also considered that the following policies are relevant (but it is to be remembered that the site is zoned for the development proposed):
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00917/B Page 6 of 8
4.3 Other Material Considerations 4.3.1 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".
4.3.2 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".
4.3.3 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.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Representations can be viewed in full on line, the following is a summary.
5.2 DOI (Highways) comment (26.08.21), "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and /or parking".
5.3 Braddan Commissioners (03/09/21) confirmed no objections.
5.4 The Director of Public Health's standing 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).
5.5 No representations have been received from members of the public at the time of writing.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues to consider when determining the application are; the principle of development on the site; the potential visual impacted the development; potential impact upon the Wildlife Site.
THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE 6.2 Given the wider support for the development of telecommunications infrastructure, the land use designation and the site history it is considered that the principle is acceptable.
THE POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACTED THE DEVELOPMENT 6.3 The Officer report for 19/00010/B included the following
"6.15 The fact the proposals are sited on the side of a hill side and their size and design; as identified with this assessment, it is likely from certain locations they will be noticeable. It is of course very difficult to pin point every single position where they could or couldn't be viewed from. However, it is considered the above locations are likely to be the main public vantage points and certainly in terms of where the majority of people would view them from, given they are in the main settlement of Douglas and from views along the main roads into Douglas.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00917/B Page 7 of 8
6.16 What is clear the public views are all from distant views and if they are apparent they would either be seen partially breaking the skyline or be read against the backdrop of Carnane itself/existing dishes. It is also noted that the skyline of Carnane is already broken by built structures i.e. two larger towers and associated building, tree copses, and other buildings highlighted in paragraph 6.10.
6.17 It is also noted that for a number of decades the site is associated with masts and more recent with satellite dishes. Therefore it could be argued that such structures given this association and the number of years they have been in place essentially blend in with the landscape, even though the two towers especially, are two of the largest structures on the IOM.
6.18 Overall, the fact that the new proposals will, when viewed, largely be seen as sitting in between the existing towers/dishes and associated buildings is such that the site will not be perceived as 'spreading out' and instead will remain satisfactorily 'contained' in visual terms.
6.19 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in visual impact terms and will consequently not unduly affect the character of the countryside in this location; it therefore is concluded to comply with General Policy 2 as well as Environment Policy 2".
6.4 Given the nature of the proposal it is considered to if anything have a lesser impact than what was previously approved and so, given the above, it is considered to be acceptable.
POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE WILDLIFE SITE 6.5 The previous application referenced a report that had been commissioned (2016) from the Manx Wildlife Trust. The Case Officer for 19/00010/B noted,
"6.21 The report highlights that the proposal would not affect the wildlife value of this site, while also recommending some management techniques appropriate for the site as a whole. While these would fail the lawfulness tests required of Planning conditions, the statement that the access track offers an "important area of open habitat in the heathland", and as such the application comes with something of an in-built mitigation measure by adding to this openness a little. As such, it is considered that the proposal would therefore comply with Environment Policies 4 and 5, subject also to a condition relating to the finish of the access track. The Report and its findings are also accepted by the Ecosystems Policy Officer (DEFA)".
As the proposal is within the site area of the previous approval, it is not considered there are any unacceptable impacts, noting the above.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered to comply with the land use zoning in the Area Plan for the East (2020) and to be in accordance with Strategic Plan Infrastructure Policy 3. It will contribute to the wider aspirations to develop telecommunications infrastructure as set out in those plans and the National Telecommunications Strategy (2018). No unacceptable impacts in terms of visual amenity, landscape or biodiversity have been identified.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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;
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00917/B Page 8 of 8
(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.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 04.11.2021
Determining officer
Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal