24 October 2006 · Delegated - Director of Planning and Building Control (M.I. McCauley)
20, Fairy Hill Close, Ballafesson, Port Erin, Isle Of Man, IM9 6tj
The proposal seeks retrospective permission for an amateur radio antenna approximately 7m tall with four 2.3m radials at 4.5m height, erected in the rear garden of a mid-terraced two-storey dwelling in a residential area.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer considered the key issues to be visual impact and potential interference with TV/radio reception, referencing UK PPG8 which states amateur radio masts 'usually present few potential planni…
Planning Policy Guidance 8: Telecommunications
PPG8 encourages positive response to amateur radio masts, noting they 'usually present few potential planning problems in terms of size and visual impact over a wide area' and need on-premises siting for technical efficiency with limited sharing options. Officer applied this directly, finding no serious amenity impact despite height; interference handled via Annex 2, deeming it non-material absent evidence, with regulatory bodies responsible.
Approved details
This permission relates to the installation of the radio antenna and associated supporting elements as shown in the file photographs and plan received on 31st May, 2006.
Personal use and removal
The antenna and supporting elements may only be used by Mr. W.H.A. Wrigley for as long as he remains at 20, Fairy Hill Close. If the antenna becomes redundant for its intended purpose or if the applicant no longer resides at the premises the antenna and supporting elements must be removed from the site.
confirms applicant is licensed amateur operator; cites PPG8 supporting positive response to radio aerials as they present few planning problems
no objection
concern about neighbour views and TV interference noted, but no formal objection stated
no planning objection; notes on working near utilities
Manx Electricity Authority raised no objection but noted underground cables/overhead lines nearby requiring contact before works; Rushen Parish Commissioners had no objection but recommended seeking neighbours' views due to potential radio/TV interference impact.
Key concern: impact on radio/TV reception
Manx Electricity Authority
No ObjectionThere are Underground Cables/Overhead Lines present in the area indicated in you Planning Application. Please contact Anthony Kinrade or Ian Horsey... to discuss working practices around Cables and Overhead Lines which may be required to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site.
Rushen Parish Commissioners
No ObjectionThe Commissioners feel that it is important that the views of the neighbours be sought as this could have an impact on radio/TV reception.
The documents cover four appeals related to radio antennae/masts. In 04/01844/B, appellant Mrs R Fulton appealed the Planning Committee's grant of permission for two VHF antennae on Kings Court apartments; the inspector found no visual harm and dismissed non-material concerns like health and interference, recommending dismissal to uphold the grant, which the Minister confirmed. In 05/01623/B, Mr R Britnell/Mr Barden appealed refusal of a 24m extendable guyed mast in a rural residential curtilage at Westhill Farm; the inspector found minor visual impact outweighed by hobby use and recommended allowance with conditions for retraction and removal on vacation. In AP1465/99/1340, Mr D Walton twice appealed refusals for a 30ft/8m pivoting mast at Ballaghennie in a residential area near a school; inspectors found it visually intrusive despite nearby school floodlights and recommended dismissal, confirmed by the Minister. Outcomes varied based primarily on visual impact assessments in different contexts.
Precedent Value
Appeals show visual impact is decisive for radio masts/antennae; permitted where insignificant (urban roofs, distant rural) but refused if prominent in residential/rural settings. Future applicants should provide Ofcom evidence, propose conditions for retraction/removal, and compare to permitted nearby structures.
Inspector: David G Hollis, Andrew D Kirby, Gillian M Pain
