Loading document...
The site represents the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling situated within Fairy Hill, to the west of Ballafesson Corner (the junction of the A32 and A7). The dwelling is a mid terraced two storey property.
The site lies within an area designated as Residential on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan.
There have been no planning applications submitted in respect of this site.
Proposed here is retrospective approval for the erection of a radio antenna. This is 11m in height at its tallest and has 4 radials 4.5m up the structure which stretch out 2.3m. There is no information regarding the nature of reception or why the antenna is required. The Commissioners are concerned that the views of neighbours are received particularly in view of television reception interruption. There are no views on file from any neighbours.
After having written to ten of the closest neighbours, I have received responses from two of them who express concern about interference with television reception. One also expresses concern at the visual impact of the mast. This objector suggests that he may move if planning permission is granted and the other objector has just sold their property but wish their views to be noted.
The applicant has solicited views from the Radio Society of Great Britain (letter dated 25th July, 2006) who confirms that the applicant is properly licensed by the DTI as an amateur radio operator. This also makes reference to Planning Policy Guidance note 8: Telecommunications and suggests that this "asks Local Planning Authorities to respond positively to applications for radio aerials" and refers to paragraph 80 which gives "a clear indication that amateur radio masts should not present potential planning problems as regards size or other serious impact on local amenities".
The note actually states that "Whilst local planning authorities are encouraged to respond positively to telecommunications development proposals, they should take account of the advice on the protection of urban and rural areas in other planning policy guidance notes" (paragraph 4). The paragraph referred to states "Applications for planning permission to install the masts often used by amateur radio operators, radio taxis firms and other private and commercial users, usually present few potential planning problems in terms of size and visual impact over a wide area. Such masts need to be high enough for technical efficiency and located as far as possible from other antennas, in order to minimise the possibility of interference. However, they will not normally be of such a scale as to have a serious impact on local amenity. Such applicants will generally have less scope for using alternative sites or for sharing sites, and masts will often need to be located on the premises" (paragraph 80). It goes on to state "Material considerations include the significance of the proposed development as part of a national network. In making an application for planning permission or prior approval, operators may be expected to provide evidence regarding the need for the proposed development" (paragraph 5).
The Note refers to interference and suggests that this may be a material consideration depending upon the significance of the interference. It refers to other bodies who have an input into such matters (The Radiocommunications Agency under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 in the UK).
There are three relatively recent applications for aerials/masts which may be considered relevant. PA 04/1844 proposed the installation of two VHF antennae at King's Court in Ramsey where there were objections on the basis of interference. The Inspector concluded that "I concur with the Planning Committee that the only planning issue that should be taken into account is whether the antennae appear detrimental to visual amenity..."(paragraph 32) and "As far as interference to radio or TV reception is concerned, the Communications Commission have submitted a statement which indicates that the appropriate Authority, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), has already sent specialist engineers to King's Court and they found no evidence of signal blocking..." This application was permitted on appeal.
PA 05/1623 proposed the erection of a radio mast at Westhill Farm, Jurby where the Inspector notes that "...where there is clear evidence of the likelihood of interference from a mast it would be a material consideration in the planning process. In this case there is no clear and cogent evidence
that there would be likely to be a problem. In the event that one were to occur there are appropriate regulatory authorities to deal with the matter" (paragraph 14). This application was permitted on appeal.
PA 99/1340 proposed the erection of a pivoting mast at Ballaghennie, Lezayre Road in Ramsey which is a more urban location than the other two referred to above. This application was refused on the basis that the inspector concluded that "...it would be a prominent feature visible to those who live in the immediate area or who pass on foot..."
Notwithstanding the guidance in PPG8, applications for such masts clearly have to be judged on their individual merits. Emerging guidance in the draft Strategic Plan suggests that such installations must be judged against all of the provisions of the plan (paragraph 11.9.2).
Advice from the Communications Commission has been received which suggests that the responsibility for seeing whether there is interference with reception is that of Ofcom (Regional Office) which executes that part of the Wireless Telegraphy Act which deals with this. Ofcom have advised on the telephone that they do not normally advise on planning applications but do become involved if there are problems of interference with radio or television and there are standard forms to complete if this is the case. As such, I do not consider that interference with radio or television signals or reception is a valid consideration in this case. The applicant has indicated that he has anti-television filters which he can apply if there is such a problem.
The antenna clearly has a visual impact although only one of the neighbours has commented on this as an adverse feature. There is similarly no objection from the local authority on this basis. The antenna replaces an earlier mast which was in place for a significant period of time (12 years) and was only removed 3 years ago.
Whilst this is a tall structure which is easily visible in the neighbourhood, bearing in mind the lack of local objection, despite letters having been out to seek the neighbours' views, there is evidence to suggest that those in the neighbourhood are used to having an antenna in place at this property and that it is not viewed as an adverse feature. The antenna may be removed easily and quickly and any permission should be associated with this applicant and a requirement for its removal if it is no longer required or if this applicant no longer resides at this property.
Rushen Parish Commissioners and Department of Transport The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Whilst Manx Electricity Authority represents a statutory authority, the points raised in correspondence relate to servicing and working practices and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupants of 1, Radcliffe Close and 21, Fairy Hill Close are sufficiently close as to be directly affected by the proposal and should be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 19.10.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. This permission relates to the installation of the radio antenna and associated supporting elements as shown in the photographs and plan received on 31st May, 2006.
C 2. 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.
N 1. The applicant is advised that there are Underground Cables/Overhead Lines present in the area indicated in the planning application. Please contact Anthony Kinrade or Ian Horsey, Operations and Maintenance Department, Network Services, Manx Electricity Authority, (Tel. 687705) 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.
The applicant is also advised to contact the M.E.A. for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (Tel. 687766), before any work is carried out on site. All work to be carried out with reference to Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes HS(G)47 and GS6.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 23/10/06
Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown