Officer Planning Report Recommendations

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:293146}} ### Considerations {{table:293141}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:293142}} {{table:293143}} {{table:293144}} {{table:293145}}

Officer's Report

Site

• The application site is located in field no 321028 adjacent to Old Church Road, on the north western side of the public highway.
• To the south west of the application site are overhead power lines which run across the field.

• There are telegraph poles running along part of the south western boundary of the field towards the junction of the Rocky Road.
• The site is not zoned for development and is zoned as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance in the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) 1982.
• The site is surrounded by agricultural fields apart from the public highway set to the southeast of the site.

Proposed Development

• The application is proposing to install a 11.9m high monopole mast with associated equipment cabinets.
• The mast will have 3no. panel antenna, 1 x 600mm dish and 1 x 300mm dish.
• Three equipment cabinets will be installed on site. These will measure as follows:
• Electrical meter cabinet - 1m x 0.32 x 1.1m
• Equipment cabinet - 0.77m x 0.68m x 1.94m
• Power One PSU - 0.8m x 0.85m x 1.94m
• The mast, antennas, dishes and equipment cabinets will be colour coated green.
• A 1.25m high stock proof fence will be erected around the compound.

Development Plan Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982.
• Isle of Man Strategic Plan (Modified Draft) (November 2004)

Planning History

• None.

Representations

• Marown Parish Commissioners have objected to the application as they believe the mast would spoil the surrounding scenic views and mar the historic setting and significance of the Church of St. Runius, to which it would be in close proximity.
• IoMWA have commented that a water main runs along the frontage to the property which may be susceptible to damage due to vehicles passing over it.
• Manx National Heritage (MNH) have made the following comments in relation to a number of applications:
• The above applications form part of the infrastructure for a new mobile telecommunications network proposed by Cable and Wireless. In total we understand that the planning office has deemed that twenty-three proposals require planning permission, but in reality there will be around four times this number of new installations needed to make this system functional.
• The Trustees of MNH are deeply concerned at the scale of this scheme, which would appear to fly in the face of both the purpose and the draft findings of the Committee on Transmission (CoTA), set up in October 2001 as a result of a Council of Ministers consideration in February 2001 that there was a need for a policy framework with the overall objective of minimising the number of sites where new masts would be required, taking account of new technologies and encouraging mast sharing. Consideration was also given to requiring any proposal for the development of a new or further development of an existing site to minimise the impact the development would have on the natural and cultural environment and to show that there was no viable alternative solution. None of

these applications can realistically be considered in complete isolation, as the impact of the network as a whole must be assessed.

• The Draft Strategic Plan rightly considers this issue and states "11.9.3 A Committee which includes representations from all interested parties has been established to co-ordinate the use and development of communication masts and infrastructure. The Government Plan 2004/7 includes a proposal to increase mast sharing by operators.

Infrastructure Policy 4:

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.

• In planning statements accompanying several of the applications where site selection and the potential for sharing facilities have been discussed, the applicant claims to have approached the development on the basis of creating a minimum network required to operate effectively and robustly in the face of estimated demand, thus minimising environmental impact and maximising effectiveness against initial cost.

• In our view, however, all the applications lack detailed consideration of the concept of employing the best available technology in order to minimise the cumulative impact of this network on the Manx landscape. In many of the applications the developer has dismissed the possibility of redeveloping existing sites in favour of co-location, this the creation of an additional single-user mast together with attendant equipment cabins, cabinets and security compounds. The result is that where, less than a decade ago, telecommunications masts were a rarity on the Island there is now one set of masts for Manx Telecom, another set proposed by Cable & Wireless, and the prospect of yet more for Cloud9.

• This is clearly proliferation of exactly the kind which CoTA process was designed to avoid: mast sharing was a key element of the recommendations drafted by the Committee. Planning Approval for such an infrastructure will have a significant impact on the Isle of Man and its landscape.

• Furthermore, we are concerned that in bringing forward a network which has been avowedly developed on the basis of minimising new sites, there will consequently be great pressure on the Planning Committee to give approval for all of the applications, since if one falls, then the effectiveness of the network will be reduced or even compromised to the point where it is unworkable. The base station sites are particularly vulnerable in this respect.

• Under such circumstances, we believe that it would be most appropriate for all of these applications to be considered together by an independent planning inspector with the opportunity to assess properly the impact of the entire network and the technical background necessary to make an informed recommendation. For this reason, on a matter which is clearly of national significance, we would strongly urge that these applications be "called-in" for public inquiry.

Assessment

• This application is one of many recently submitted applications by the applicant for the installation of various types of telecommunication developments across the island.

• In May 2006, the Communications Commission licensed two operators to offer mobile telephone service in the Isle of Man. These were Cable & Wireless Isle of Man Ltd (the applicant) and Wire9, through its Manx subsidiary Cloud9.

• In late September 2006, an initial meeting was held with the applicants to discuss the general principles for rolling out a new mobile phone network for the whole of the Island. This meeting was then followed by subsequent meeting to discuss site specific issues.

• The options for the design used by an operator will be affected by the site conditions, technical constraints, landscape features and capacity requirements. The main options would include
• Mast and/or site sharing;
• Installation on existing buildings and structures;
• Camouflaging or disguising equipment
• Using small scale equipment;
• Erecting new ground based masts.

• The applicant was guided towards using existing masts, site sharing in the first instance and then new mast being the last resort.

• As a result of these meetings Cable and Wireless and National Grid Wireless have sought a number of determinations for whether planning permission would be required to install antennas, dishes and equipment cabinets on a number of existing telecommunication sites over the Island. These are:
• DHA Jurby Tower
• DHA Kimmeragh Tower
• DHA Ballasaig Tower
• DHA Peel Hill Tower
• DHA Snaefell Tower
• DHA Carnane Tower
• DHA ESJCR Tower
• NGW Port St Mary
• NGW Glen Maye
• NGW Laxey
• NGW Union Mills
• Mast a Broadcasting House.

• These were considered not to require planning permission or at least require planning permission for external equipment cabinets.

• These sites along with the Beary Park Transmitter gives a total of 13 existing masts will be used as part of the new network without the need of installing a new mast at these sites. The applicants are proposing to use 38 sites to set up the initial network. Therefore 34.2% of the sites are existing masts.

• In terms of site sharing, this is where a new mast will be located alongside an existing mast. 9 of the sites are considered to be site sharing, which is 23.7% of the sites
• Overall the 57.9% of the new network will be based on mast/site sharing locations.

• In terms of the location of apparatus on existing buildings or structures (excluding masts), the applicant has identified 5 buildings to locate their apparatus on, which is 13.2% of the total number of sites.

• In terms of the installation of new masts, the applicants are proposing 11 new masts to be installed on the island, which is 28.9% of the sites.

• This application is proposing to site a new ground based mast within this location.

• The location of the site has been strategically considered to provide significant coverage along the A1 between Glen Vine and Greeba. It also covers the important residential areas within Crosby and Glen Vine.

• The applicant has stated the site provides good coverage to the target area and it has been chosen from a visual amenity perspective as it is located on reasonably high ground which will allow them to install a relatively low level structure on which to place the antenna.

• In the site selection process the applicant has identified no existing dedicated telecom sites or suitable existing structures on which to mount the antennas.

• The applicant has identified there is a relatively small area that will allow them to get coverage to the desired area.

• One discounted option is the Department of Transports Ellerslie Depot. Due to the ground level height being significantly lower. The cell planner predicts that to get similar coverage a 40 metre structure would be required to hold the antennas. This would be significantly more visually obtrusive than an 8m tower which is being proposed.

• As a result, the applicant feel this is the best choice for a new mast in the chosen location, as the mast has been placed carefully on the rise of the hill in order that it does not stick above the skyline from the majority of viewpoints, especially from along the A1.

• In a recent appeal at Ballnalargy, the appeal inspector stated that "In an area of special landscape, this being an Area of High Landscape Value, the protection of the landscape is the primary consideration. It is therefore appropriate to consider this issue first". The inspector went onto say "the policies require in the first instance that there should be no harm to the character of the landscape not that harm should be minimised."

• In terms of consistency, the same issues apply as the site is located within an Area of High Landscape Value. The proposed mast along with the antenna shroud and dishes will be colour coated brown to blend in with the surrounding landscape. The proposed equipment cabinet are of a standard design and size and will be grey and will have limited impact on the visual amenities of the area. The applicant has carefully considered the options available and acknowledges the visual impact of a mast.

• Therefore the applicant has opted to paint the structure to match as closely as possible to the telegraph poles, and positioning/design of the site in such a way as to maximise the benefits of the natural screening, backdrop and appearing to be similar to the existing telegraph poles in the area. However, the structure is an alien feature which would affect the character of the landscape.

• If it is considered that the mast does affect the character of the landscape the policies set out an exception for allowing a visually intrusive mast in a sensitive location by demonstrating strategic national need and that the location is essential.

• As to national need it has been stated in the inspectors report that the Government have not set out any policy for there to be full coverage. There is no policy in the Government Plan and the applicant has stated that their licence does not require them either to achieve a specific level of coverage. There is thus no national need which should be set against the primary consideration of protection of the landscape.

• However the test of essential location is a different test, the applicant has considered other locations to provide coverage within the area but have been either discounted for visual impact reasons. I therefore consider the applicant has demonstrated the essential need of this location.

• In respect of the comments from Marown Parish Commissioners in relation to the impact on St. Runius Church. The Church is a registered building. There is a number of telegraph poles along the boundary of the field between the application site and the Church. The application site is set approximately 210m from the registered building. On consideration the proposed mast is set a significant distance away from the registered building and there are existing telegraph poles within the vicinity of the registered building. I do not consider the proposed mast will adversely affect the setting of the registered building.

• The proposed mast is not directly overlooked by any residential properties.

• I disagree with Manx National Heritage's comment if one of the planning applications falls, then the effectiveness of the network will be reduced or even compromised to the point where it is unworkable. Manx National Heritage has not taken a practical approach in the assessment of the application. The failure of any site does not mean the network is ineffective or unworkable. It just means that the applicant has to propose an alternative site which is appropriate for the locality and to provide the coverage for that particular area. The applications are purely to allow an assessment of site specific issues and not to assess the cumulative impact on the network as a whole.

• The comment from MNH also focuses on the proliferation of masts in the Manx landscape. Furthermore, the points raised in their correspondence also relate to the natural and cultural environment and the cumulative impact on the Manx landscape.

• I consider the applicant has taken all the necessary steps to limit the impact of the proposed mast within the landscape through its siting, height and colour coating of all apparatus to be used at the site so as to blend with the surrounding landscape.

• In terms of the health issues of a telecommunication mast, the Isle of Man has no specific guidelines in how to deal with such concerns. However, the UK Government has produced such advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 – Telecommunications (PPG8). PPG8 expressly advises that where a proposed telecommunications installation conforms to the recommendation of The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (The Stewart Report) and the Guidelines for the public exposure set by The International Commission On Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) then the local planning authority should have no concerns with regard to health and safety issues.

• The application is accompanied by a certificate of compliance with the World Health Organisation ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure.

• The Health and Safety Inspectorate is responsible for the monitoring of telecommunications installations to ensure compliance with the ICNIRP Guidelines.

Recommendation

I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions in the attached schedule.

Party Status

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 National Heritage represents a statutory authority, the points raised in correspondence relate to the natural and cultural environment and the cumulative impact on the Manx landscape. The Manx and Museum and National Trust Act 1959 allows Manx National Heritage to promote the permanent preservation for the benefit of the people of the Isle of Man of lands and tenements (including buildings) of beauty or historic interest and as, regards lands, the preservation (so far as practicable) of their natural aspect, features and animal and plant life. Since the site is located in an Area of High Landscape Value, I consider that Manx National Heritage does have sufficient interest in

the application and I therefore recommend that Manx National Heritage should be afforded party status in this instance.

Whilst the IoM Water Authority represent a statutory authority, the points raised do not relate to planning matters and therefore should not be afforded interested party status

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 26.02.2007

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

C 1.

The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2.

This permission relates to the installation of a 8m monopole mast with associated equipment cabinets as shown in drawing numbers 02213/1, 114/010 Issue A, 114/012 Issue B, 114/013 Issue B, 114/014 Issue B, 114/017 Issue A dated stamped 21st December 2006, Supporting statement prepared by CH2M Hill dated 15th December 2006, Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines dated 08/12/06.

C 3.

Within one month of the installation of the mast, antennas, transmission dishes and equipment cabin and cabinet hereby approved, they shall be colour coated in full accordance with details shown on the approved plans. Any replacement or modification shall be colour coated to match within one month of the works being carried out.

C 4.

In the event of the mast and equipment cabinets erected under this approval becoming redundant it must be taken down and removed from the site within 3 months of cessation of use.

N 1.

The Isle of Man Water Authority advises that a water main runs along the frontage to the property which may be susceptible to damage due to vehicles passing over it. You are advised to contact the water authority to discuss protecting the main before construction work commences.

Decision Made : ___________________________ Committee Meeting Date : ___________________________

27 February 2007 06/02213/B