Officer Planning Report Recommendations

Application No.: 06/02162/B Applicant: Cable And Wireless Isle Of Man Limited Proposal: Replacement of a wooden flagpole with a 6m steel flagpole with shrouded antennas with associated equipment cabinet Site Address: Public Conveniences West Quay Peel Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks Expected Decision Level: Delegation ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: Manx National Heritage Notes: Lengthy response see original correspondence. Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consulttee: Peel Town Commissioners Notes: Approve

Officer's Report

SITE

• The application site is the public conveniences on the breakwater off St Patrick Isle at Peel.
• To the north of the application site is the Sea Wall.
• To the south of the site is a concrete access road to the end of the breakwater.
• To the west of the applications site is an existing ice cream hut.
• To the southwest of the site is a Lifeboat station and Peel Castle.
• Peel Castle is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

• The application is proposing to replace an existing wooden flagpole with a 6m steel flagpole with shrouded antennas with associated cabinets.
• The proposed cabinets will be installed in an existing service room
• The mast and shroud will be colour coated white.

Planning Status And Relevant Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Peel Local Plan) 1989
• Isle of Man Strategic Plan (Modified Draft) (November 2004)

Planning History

• None.

Representations

• Highways Division of the DoT do not oppose the application.
• Peel Town Commissioners have recommended that the application be approved.
• 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

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

• 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 has indicated the site is being used to provide coverage to central Peel. It has been stated there are no existing telecoms structures and no available rooftops to provide the height required to cover the central Peel area. Central Peel is also covered by a Conservation Area which the applicants have avoided due to the sensitive nature of any development within this zoning.

• Other sites have been considered around the Mill Road Industrial Area between the Power Station and the Harbour but have been ruled out as it does not provide coverage to central Peel and it duplicates the coverage provided by the Department of Home Affairs mast on Peel Hill.

• Peel Football Club has been ruled out due to coverage and it proximity to a school, which was considered to be a sensitive location.

• The proposed location enables coverage into the main commercial area through the coverage is limited by not being centrally located and being a relatively low height.

• The applicant considers the replacement of the existing flagpole with a structure similar in appearance is considered the best opportunity available to limit the effect on visual amenity.

• In respect of the impact of the visual amenities of the locality, the proposed mast and shroud will be painted to replicate the existing flagpole design and will replace the existing wooden structure on the site. The mast will be taller than the existing flagpole and will be marginally taller than the existing street lighting columns along the quayside. I consider the proposed mast will not be any different in appearance than the existing flagpole. The proposed structure would not appear out of place due to the existence of street lighting columns and a flagpole belonging to the RNLI. Furthermore I do not consider that the introduction of a replacement vertical element on the building will appear incongruous by reason of its height and visual appearance within the locality.

• I also do not feel the proposal will adversely affect the setting of Peel Castle, as Scheduled Ancient Monument.

• The proposed equipment cabinets are to be installed internally within the existing service room and will not adversely affect 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 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 comment from MNH also focuses on the proliferation of masts in the Manx landscape. Cable and Wireless are using an existing building which reduces the need for new mast to be erected within the countryside.

• Furthermore, the points raised in their correspondence relate to the natural and cultural environment and the cumulative impact on the Manx landscape. Since the site is located on an existing building on a working quayside and not within a countryside location 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 located on an existing building on a working quayside and not within a countryside location 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: 09.02.2007

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 a 6m steel flagpole with shrouded antennas with associated equipment cabinets as shown in drawing numbers 02162/1, 104/010 Issue A, 104/012 Issue A, 104/013 Issue A, 104/014 Issue A, 104/017 Issue A dated stamped 13th December 2006, Supporting statement prepared by CH2M Hill dated 5th December 2006, Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines dated 13/12/06

C 3. In the event of the antennas, transmission dishes 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.

C 4. Within one month of the installation of the mast with shrouded antennas 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 being carried out.

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 : 27/8/07 Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control