Officer Planning Report Recommendations

Considerations {{table:293268}} {{table:293264}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:293265}} {{table:293266}} {{table:293267}}

Officer's Report

Site

• The application site is located in the western part of Field No. 514072, Nr Ballacrhink Farm off Old Castletown/Pound Road.
• The site currently comprises of a monopole mast, which is used by Manx Telecom, and a lattice mast, which is used by the Department of Home Affairs as part of the TETRA system.
• The site is not zoned for development and an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance in the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) 1982.
• The Pound Road is set to west of the application site.

• The public highway of the A5 is set approximately 200m to the north west of the application site.
• The public highway of the A25 is set approximately 350m south of the application site.

Proposed Development

• The application is proposing to replace the existing 13m high lattice mast with a 15m high lattice mast along with the erection of a stone equipment room.
• The mast will have 3 no. panel antennas and 2 x 300mm dishes to serve the Cable and Wireless network. Further the DHA antenna and dish will be installed onto the replacement mast.
• The mast will be colour coated green.
• The equipment building will be 4.1m x 38.m x 4m high.
• The building will be stone clad with slate roof.

Development Plan Policies

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

Planning History

• 99/00533 – Erection of equipment cabin at approved mast site – refused 05.10.99
• 98/01662 – Erection of telecommunications monopole with 3 sector antennas and equipment cabin – granted 02.03.1999
• 00/00082/B – Creation of radio site with mast antenna, dish and transmitter building – granted 13.07.2000

Representations

• Santon Parish Commissioners have no objection to the proposal and are pleased to see the equipment room proposed to be finished in stone.
• 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 a mast/site share.

• The applicant has indicated the site is in order to provide coverage to potential customers in the western Santon area. The site will cover western part of Santon and large stretches of the A5 and A25 passing through the Santon area and on towards Ballasalla. In addition the A26 between Ballasalla and St Marks will also receive coverage.

• In addition to the coverage the site is also part of a network of sites that communicate by dish link. The links must have direct line of sight to one another in order to operate.

• In the site selection process the applicant has identified two existing telecommunications site located adjacent to each other. One being Manx Telecom and feature and features a monopole and stone equipment building. The second is owned by the Department of Home Affairs and features a 13m lattice mast and stone equipment building. The applicant considers both sites have been thoughtfully designed and located to ensure they are as visually unobtrusive as possible, so sharing one of these structures would require the need to try and preserve as much of the design benefits as possible, whilst still achieving the operational requirement of the applicant's equipment.

• The Manx Telecom site was discounted on the basis that the structure already had 2 sets of antennas on it and would leave a potential height of between 5-6m (to base of antenna) for their equipment if the existing tower was usable, as the site is surrounded by many trees that are higher than this, the coverage would be detrimentally affected and line of sight doubtful. The possibility of redeveloping the tower into one was considered but this would have meant a monopole of 16-18m in height being contrasted and the applicant felt it would be unacceptable on visual intrusion grounds.

• The DHA lattice mast only has a single dish and single omni-directional antenna at the very top of the structure, leaving the remainder potentially available for sharing. However, the applicant has discovered the existing tower is designed for a single user and unfit for purpose in accommodating their equipment. The applicant has also identified an additional issue after a formal line of sight survey which revealed that only the very top part of the mast is visible from neighbouring site. Thus leaving little margin for error if the trees surrounding the site grown much taller. Therefore the applicant has opted for a replacement mast which is designed for multiple users. This mast will be taller than the existing mast in order to get the required line of sight and coverage.

• The applicant has considered placing a third structure in the vicinity but felt that it would only be justifiable if the site sharing proposal was not possible.

• 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 existing and proposed structures are alien features which would affect the character of the landscape. The applicant has carefully considered the options available and opting for a redevelopment of an existing mast is the least harmful and reduces the need for an additional mast to be erected in the vicinity. Considering the mast is set a significant distance from the public highway and set behind a group of trees I consider the mast would be very difficult to notice from the A5 and A25. However, the proposed mast will be visible from the Pound Road. I do not consider the increase in height will cause any further harm to the landscape than what currently exists.

• 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, there is a strategic national need in terms of the Department of Home Affairs equipment as this forms part of the TETRA system for the emergency services. This need is already meant by the existing mast. The Department of Home Affairs do not need a new mast. The mast is to accommodate the applicant's equipment along the Department of Home Affairs equipment.

• 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, coverage reasons and whether the proposed dish would not have a direct line of sight to another mast. I therefore consider the applicant has demonstrated the essential need of this location.

• It has been a Government policy objective to encourage telecommunications operators, wherever practicable, to share a mast and sites, as a means of reducing the overall mast numbers. I consider the proposal currently before you is the most preferable as it has the least impact on the visual amenities of the locality.

• 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 have 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.

• Cable and Wireless are using a site sharing option. This reduces the need for new mast to be erected within the countryside. A proliferation of masts near to one another could cause greater visual intrusion so it is vital that the masts are designed sensitively in order to reduce their cumulative visual impact. I consider the applicant has taken all the necessary steps to limit the impact of the proposed mast within the landscape through its siting 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.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 23.02.2007

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

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

• : 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 replacement of an existing 13m high lattice mast with a 15m high lattice and erection of a stone equipment room as shown in drawing numbers 02205/1, 025/010 Issue A, 025/012 Issue A, 025/013 Issue A, 025/014 Issue A, 025/112 Issue A, 025/113 Issue A, 025/114 Issue A and 025/117 dated stamped 19th December 2006, Supporting statement prepared by CH2M Hill dated 14th December 2006, Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines dated 18/12/06.

C 3. The roof of the equipment room must be finished in dark natural slate.

C 4. The exterior stonework of the equipment room must be of a traditional nature.

NOTE: Split stone on a backing render is not acceptable as an external finish.

C 5. In the event of the mast and equipment room erected under this approval becoming redundant it must be taken down and removed from the site within 3 months of cessation of use.

Decision Made : A Committee Meeting Date : 8/3/07

27 February 2007 06/02205/B Page 8 of 8