Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:154179}} {{table:154180}} {{table:154181}} {{table:154182}} {{table:154183}} ### Considerations ### Written Representations ### Consultations

Officer's Report

Site

• The application site is a telecommunication mast site at the Beary Park, which south of Glen Helen and east of the A3. The site comprises of an existing 45m lattice mast which accommodates broadcast equipment plus emergency services equipment and mobile phone apparatus on behalf of Manx Telecom.
• At ground level there are 2 two equipment rooms.
• The site is zoned as an Area for Government or Service Department Purposes and the site is identified as a TV transmitter on the 1982 Development Plan.

Proposed Development

• The application is proposing to install 9 antennas and 7 dishes onto the existing mast and to install three cabinets within the existing compound.

• The three cabinets will measure 770mm x 790mm x 1940mm (Each) and the meter cabinet will be 1000mm x 450mm x 1050mm.

Planning Status And Relevant Policies

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

Planning History

• 01/00048 – Installation of antenna on existing mast – granted 29.06.2001
• 00/01771/B – Installation of 3 antennae onto existing telecommunications mast – granted 28.02.2001
• 00/00067 – Replacement of antenna and dishes – granted 25.05.2000
• 91/00889 – Additional aerials to existing mast – granted
• 87/04300/B – Erection of a single storey transmitter station – granted

Representations

• German Parish Commissioner – no objection
• 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 con-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 compromises 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

• 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 and Wire9, through its Manx subsidiary Cloud9.

• There already a number of antennas and dishes installed on the mast. The proposal is to installation antennas and dishes at various heights of the mast for the two new operators. The site is a dedicated telecommunication site where additional apparatus would be expected to be installed at time to time. The mast is not located in any areas of special protection such as an area of high landscape value or scenic significance. I consider the installation of the additional equipment to the mast will not adversely affect the visual amenities of the locality considering the number of antennas and dishes which already exist.

• The proposed cabinets will be located within an existing compound area where other buildings exist, which are in association with the 45m high mast.

• The proposed equipment cabinets are of standard design and size. The plans do not indicate whether the cabinets will be colour coated to further reduce its impact on the visual amenities of the area. However, since the cabinets are to be sited next to the mast which is galvanised. The cabinet would appear more in keeping with the mast if it were not be colour coated. I therefore consider the colour coating of the cabinets would not be appropriate in this case.

• 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 practically 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 comments from MNH also focus on the proliferation of masts in the Manx landscape. Cable and Wireless are using an existing mast. The mast is already being shared with other operators. I consider this site is the most preferable as it is a means to reduce the overall mast numbers.

• Furthermore, the points raised in their correspondence relate to the natural and cultural environment and the cumulative impact on the Manx landscape. The site is zoned as an area for Government and service department purpose and clearly identified as a TV transmitter site on the Development Plan I do not consider the points made are relevant in the determination of this planning application.

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, the cumulative impact on the Manx landscape and the proliferation of mast. Since the site is zoned as an area for Government and service department purpose and clearly identified as a TV transmitter site on the Development Plan I do not consider the points made are relevant in the determination of this planning application. I therefore recommend that Manx National Heritage should not be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 16.02.2007

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 installation of 9 antennas and 7 dishes onto the existing mast along with associated equipment cabinets as shown in drawing numbers DO.E1-20641 Sheet 1 of 1

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 : 27/3/07

Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control