Loading document...
Dear Sirs,
Re : Proposed 50m high lattice mast and installation of equipment for BBC DAB radio, Cable & Wireless, Cloud 9 Mobile Communications and Manx Telecom at the Arqiva Richmond Hill Transmitting Station, The Speke, Braddan, Douglas, IOM. PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMISSION.
We are instructed by Arqiva to prepare and lodge a full planning application for the proposed works at the above site. You will be aware of our current planning application, Ref : 07/00015/B relating to the provision of two temporary masts at the site for Cable & Wireless and Cloud 9.
Following the telecommunication industry's "10 Commitments" initiative; PPG8 [ in lieu of IOM's own version ]; and the Code of Best Practice, a prior consultation letter was dispatched to the Planning & Building Control Directorate dated 16th November 2006 but to date, we have not received any response. We are pleased however to enclose our full planning application for these proposals and to enable you to register and determine the application, we have enclosed the following : -
1.1 Arqiva is an international communications company with a 50 year broadcasting heritage and with origins back to the former Independent Broadcasting Authority [ IBA ]. The IBA was responsible for the administration, development and transmission of all commercial television and radio programmes in the UK and it is as a result of these beginnings that Arqiva now has a large portfolio of masts and towers.
1.2 Arqiva has been a leading provider of wireless infrastructure for business users for more than 20 years. Their customer base includes all major UK broadcasters and wireless telecommunications operators as well as localised network suppliers. Arqiva seek to provide additional facilities and mast sharing with other users within the telecommunications industry, in accordance with governmental obligations.
1.3 Arqiva are actively engaged in promoting the sharing of their sites throughout the UK for Cellular Telephone, Code Operators and other similar commercial telecommunications applications. They fully endorse the Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 and the Code of Best Practice, particularly the encouragement of the sharing of telecommunication sites and telecommunication structures, thus safeguarding the character and amenities of the locality and negating tower proliferation.
2.1 The operators have a specific obligation to develop and maintain both second and third generation mobile telecommunications networks across the UK. Under the spectrum licence issued under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, the operator's 3G network must cover 80% of the UK population by 2007 and also be able to meet the reasonable customer demands that may be placed upon. The 3G system is of course broadband and carries voice, text and have high data capabilities that will also enable the transmission and receipt of visual media, including real time video calls.
2.2 The benefits of modern communications, including mobile communications are acknowledged within PPG8 and hence the general policy to facilitate the growth of new and existing systems. Modern mobile telecommunications are also recognised by Government as the fundamental bedrock to the core objective to make sure that the UK is the best place in the world to carry out electronic business. The target date for attainment was 2002, although the Government has not announced whether this core objective has been met. However, it has announced a further core objective, that the UK has the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2007. The 3G networks operate at speeds that fall within the OFCOM definition of broadband and so their development is fundamental to the attainment of this latest objective.
2.3 The range of benefits are not obvious to all and to assist the following public benefits are highlighted by way of examples: -
help reduce peak period congestion and pollution. This is a particularly important benefit when transport policy to reduce travel and CO² emissions seems to be failing.
> Mobile phones can help minimise unnecessary journeys, so increasing productivity and reducing travel demands.
> Mobile phones can help extend business opportunities into peripheral areas. This important benefit will be considerably enhanced by 3G wireless broadband provision in areas where fixed links will be uneconomic to provide.
> Mobile phones can bring about far greater personal convenience and security, for example, teenagers can keep in parental contact when out in the evening.
2.4 Mobile communications are clearly therefore a public service. A further major benefit is the contribution that such systems make to the attainment of often elusive objectives relating to sustainable development and with most authorities now championing this cause, this merits highlighting.
2.5 Mobile communications will in particular assist in the following ways: -
> Modern communications in all their different and emerging forms, including mobile communications, help maintain high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
> Modern communications, including mobile communications, aid social progress, which recognises the needs of everyone. This manifests itself in a number of ways as illustrated by the following examples: -
> Modern communications, including mobile communications, provide effective protection of the environment by helping reduce the need to travel by enabling modern working practices such as greater home working. Such practices reduce the need for travel and can alleviate the pressure for new commercial development such as offices, through more efficient and flexible use of existing accommodation.
> For the same reasons, modern communications, including mobile communications, help ensure the prudent use of natural resources.
2.6 However to make this important contribution to sustainable development objectives and to provide the range of services demanded by the public, mobile networks need to be supported by an infrastructure of base stations. There are now in excess of 60 million mobile phone customers in the UK alone and line numbers and usage exceeds that for fixed lines. From a total population of around 56 million, this means almost every young person and adult now has a mobile phone. This assumes the very young and the very old do not and allows for some users who will have more than one line (typically for business and private use or for voice and a dedicated line for data). The majority of the population therefore wants to have the benefits of mobile communications. For any mobile customer the most frustrating aspects of the service they receive are dropped calls or no service.
2.7 Additionally, the new structure will host the BBC's DAB Radio antenna, the principle reason for the proposed tower height, since to achieve the requisite coverage, they need to be positioned at 50m. This service will be of significant benefit to a huge section of the south eastern region of the island, all of whom will be catered for by this single facility.
3.1 As stated in our pre-application consultations, Arqiva are proposing to replace the existing 10m high monopole at the site with a new 50m high slimline, tapering lattice tower to support new equipment for the BBC DAB; Cable & Wireless and Cloud 9 Mobile Communications, as well as the existing Manx Telecom equipment to be transferred from the existing monopole. We are aware that the site previously hosted a 61m high lattice tower and indeed, the foundations for this remain today, alongside the proposed tower base.
3.2 Cable & Wireless and Cloud 9 have a more pressing need for equipment at the site and in view of the likely timescales for the determination of this application and hence, if successful, the build period, a temporary solution for both operators is required to cover the 200th TT Race meeting and also the usual peak traffic over the tourist season. Our application Ref : 07/0015/B refers and is currently undetermined.
3.3 Accordingly, it is proposed to carry out the following development at the site : -
[see enclosed drawings D0.E1 - 01613, Issue 1 & DO.FS - 20286, Rev.A]
3.5 The existing 10m high monopole supporting equipment for Manx Telecoms would remain in situ until the replacement was built and likewise the two temporary masts [assuming consent is forthcoming].
3.6 The new tower will enable the operators to provide good continuous coverage over Douglas, the airport and the ports. This area is expected to carry high call traffic
[especially subscriber roaming from UK to IOM], since this is the main road to and from the airport from Douglas. Therefore a robust coverage and good call quality network is important in this area. It will of course also deliver coverage to residential properties and businesses located in and around the Richmond Hill, Newtown, and Mount Murray areas and beyond, as illustrated on the enclosed coverage plots.
3.7 From technical sight of view, the Arqiva Richmond Hill facility is located on a reasonably high ridge location with a clear line of sight to the residential areas and the main road from Douglas to Airport. With minimal obstacles and advantageous ground elevation propagation is anticipated to be excellent, providing an unusually greater penetration and thus negating additional sites in this sensitive landscape, as well as avoiding mast proliferation.
3.8 The compound at Richmond Hill is already designated as a transmitting station and contains an existing Manx Telecom mobile base station. There are no existing sites or alternative structures suitable for use in the immediate vicinity.
4.1 As a community orientated company with an established track record in the broadcast and telecommunications industry, Arqiva is aware of the sensitivity around additional network deployment. Their policy is designed to deliver successful site deployment while addressing local concerns and fulfilling the requirements of the Planning Authorities. The policy has evolved through their wide experience in pursuing the full spectrum of planning applications and embracing the spirit of the telecommunication industry's '10 Commitments' initiative on community consultation.
4.2 In this respect, the issues surrounding development of the replacement mast and the two temporary pump up masts, in this sensitive landscape is fully appreciated and Arqiva were anxious to ensure that meaningful consultation takes place prior to the submission of this application and indeed, the application for the main redevelopment. Accordingly, a letter dated 16th November 2006 was issued to the Planning & Building Control Directorate. Additionally, a concurrent letter was dispatched to the Braddan Parish Council.
4.3 No responses have been received to these consultations and thus the application has been lodged as originally proposed. Copies of the consultation letters are enclosed.
4.4 If however concerns remain about any aspect of this development, we would welcome an early dialogue with a view to resolving outstanding issues and so not unduly hindering the progress of the application.
5.1 We are advised that, where no IOM policy document is available, the island leans towards the English legislation and policy guidance. In this respect, we are unaware of any specific document which replicates the issues covered by the PPG8 and we would therefore draw from this document in so far as it relates to this current proposal.
5.2 PPG8 Telecommunications continues to stress the benefits of modern telecommunications, and the longstanding encouragement towards such development as being essential to a modern economy and contributing to sustainable objectives remains. In view of this policy, authorities are advised to respond positively to proposals for telecommunications
development and to understand the associated special problems and technical needs. That advice and the permitted development rights maintained to facilitate the establishment of networks apply even in locations usually subject to policies of restraint. PPG8 also emphasises the significance of national networks and the context of the proposed installation in this regard is explained above.
5.3 Against this background of encouragement, PPG8 also recognises the need, now with greater emphasis, to strike an appropriate balance between operational and environmental considerations. The mobile operator's '10 Commitments' initiative were an industry response to introduce a process to better help strike that balance, together with local planning authorities. Whilst this is a broadcasting as well as telecommunications requirement, Arqiva have followed the guiding principles of the Code. In particular, the pre-application process leading up to this application has been fully respected and was intended to contribute to such a balance being struck in this case.
5.4 With reference to the Supporting Guidance to PPG8, we believe that the operational needs do constitute the very special circumstances to outweigh the limited harm that may be perceived, given that the site is situated within a sensitive landscape.
5.5 Likewise, borrowing from the English planning policy guidance, we note that PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas has generally restrictive policies in the open countryside, with particular emphasis on designated areas. However, it is clear that the key principles behind PPS7 are the ones that relate to sustainable development and we have emphasised the particular contribution this development will make in this regard. PPS7 also recognises that local communities must be provided with a range of facilities and services, even in designated areas. The development proposed relates to a range of public services that are in great demand, including and perhaps especially within rural and remote areas.
5.5 Having regard to the particular advice set out within PPG8, paragraph 64 of the Supporting Guidance also recognises that even in these areas of high sensitivity, broadcast and telecommunications development will still be required and is still permissible. PPG8 does emphasise, however, that proposals must be sensitively sited and designed, and that there are no suitable alternative locations. In this case, the new tower is driven by the need to accommodate the BBC DAB Radio antenna systems at the stated height. There are no obviously better sites, with similar ground elevation and overall height, that are suitable or available within the immediate vicinity to accommodate this equipment and thus the use of this long established and designated telecommunications facility accords.
6.1 The Braddan Local Plan is we understand, the extant policy document within which applications will be considered, it being in force since July 1991. The Draft Braddan Local Plan of April 2001 has now been abandoned we understand in favour of the emerging Sector Plans, under the umbrella of the Draft IOM Strategic Plan November 2004.
6.2 From the Braddan Plan, we understand that the site does not lie within any Article 1[5] land but is within an Area of High Landscape Value. The site itself is believed to be classified as a "Transmitting Station", as defined within Section 5 Industry of the plan.
6.3 This statement does not provide specific policy wording but states at Paragraph 5.3 that, "There are also industries operating within the parish which have been approved or accepted in the past on the grounds of special or particular need to be located in particular locations within the countryside." We understand that the Arqiva Transmitting site is one such 'industry' and that the site is designated as a "Transmitting Station" for the purposes of the local plan.
6.4 Accordingly, we believe that the continuation of use of the site for the said approved purposes is consistent with this plan objective and moreover, that the haring of the site and expansion of the number of operators accommodated, accords with the wider aims and objectives of telecommunications equipment deployment in that it negates tower proliferation and the establishment of new Greenfield sites in the area.
6.5 Since for Development Control purposes we are advised that the Draft Strategic Plan is being given weight by the Inspectorate, we will look at the policies governing AHLV and Telecommunications and comment as follows: -
"The present system of landscape classification will be used as a basis for development control. Development which would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the landscape within these designated areas will not be permitted.
"Within areas designated under the present landscape classification system or in any subsequent classification system, the protection and conservation of landscape character will be the primary planning consideration. Development will only be permitted where: -
a) its location is demonstrated to be essential and b) it would not harm the character and quality of the landscape.
"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, which cannot be otherwise secured by mast sharing or alternative locations."
☐ The Arqiva Richmond Hill Transmitting Station is a long established broadcasting and telecommunications site and pre-dates the current raft of landscape designations contained within both the Braddan Local Plan and the emerging Strategic Plan.
☐ We understand that the site is specifically designated as a "Transmitting Station", as defined within Section 5 Industry of the Braddan Plan and whilst this statement does not provide specific policy wording it does state at Paragraph 5.3 that, "There
are also industries operating within the parish which have been approved or accepted in the past on the grounds of special or particular need to be located in particular locations within the countryside." We understand that the Arqiva Transmitting site is one such 'industry' and that the site was so designated as a "Transmitting Station" for the purposes of the local plan.
☐ The history shows that the site was also host to a 61m high mast for broadcasting purposes and the foundation base remains on site adjacent to the proposed new tower base. The mast was removed 1993 due, we understand, to structural concerns. Prior to that and cumulatively since, numerous additions have been made to the site facilities via planning consents issued by the authority and hence, the legacy of broadcasting and telecommunications at this site has continued and evolved since establishment, notwithstanding the numerous and varied landscape designations created around it.
☐ It cannot be denied that that a new 50m mast will have an impact upon the landscape character of the area and potentially, this will be adverse as opposed to an enhancement. Telecommunications structures of regional and national importance, as this will undoubtedly become, inevitably have this impact and they are, in design terms, a pure reflection of their function and there is little if any opportunity to ameliorate their impact in visual terms.
☐ It is for this reason we believe that planning policy and guidance on deployment within sensitive landscapes, where such structures would ordinarily be deemed inappropriate development, suggest to planning authorities that there are special circumstances where permission may be given, where the overriding need for the structure and services it will host outweigh the limited harm to the landscape. As mentioned in Section 5 above, in the apparent absence of specific policy on this issue, we understand the Government defer to English legislation and policy.
☐ PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas has restrictive policies in the open countryside, with particular emphasis on designated areas and key principles relating to sustainable development. We have emphasised the particular contribution this development will make in this regard. PPS7 also recognises that local communities must be provided with a range of facilities and services, even in designated areas. The development proposed relates to a broad range of public services that are in great demand, including and perhaps especially within rural and remote areas and from the coverage plots provided, it can be seen how wide reaching the service provision from this single site will be.
☐ Paragraph 64 of the Supporting Guidance to PPG8 recognises that even in these areas of high sensitivity, broadcast and telecommunications development will still be required and is still permissible. Proposals must however be sensitively sited and designed, and that there are no suitable alternative locations. In this case, the new tower height is essentially driven by the need to accommodate the BBC DAB Radio antenna systems, which, at the stated height, give a significant island coverage. Furthermore, the tower will be shared by an existing and two additional mobile telecommunication operators, thus increasing greater the choice, availability and quality of communication services for thee islanders.
☐ There are no obviously better sites, with similar ground elevation and overall height, that are suitable or available within the immediate vicinity to accommodate this equipment and thus the use of this long established and designated
8
telecommunications facility accords with policy. We concur that a 50m will be visible for a wide area but the significant sharing opportunity here, by 4 operators, will negate the deployment of a plethora of new greenfield sites throughout this sensitive landscape and beyond, thus contributing greatly to the aims of minimising tower proliferation.
☐ We therefore believe, because of the significant areas of coverage achievable from this single site for all four services, that there is a need of regional if not national [ in so far as the IOM is concerned ] for this facility. The site will of course cover the principle town of Douglas and the main gateways in and out of the island and of course the main highway networks radiating out from the town, ports and airport. It therefore provides crucial communications into the key areas which will enhance business and the general economy of the island and of course, benefit the tourism industry through greater ability of visitors to contact hotels and places of interest whilst on the move, providing a flexibility to vacations favoured nowadays.
☐ The importance of this provision does, we contend, demonstrate a national strategic need which cannot be met by other means. Accordingly, we consider that this need outweighs the limited harm which may be caused by it's position, albeit on a designated telecommunications site, within this sensitive landscape. We invite the authority to concur with this view.
7.0 Health & Related Issues
7.1 In view of the high level of public interest on health and safety associated with mobile phones, the Department of Health set up the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) under Sir William Stewart. The IEGMP undertook a full review of all research on the subject relating to both thermal and non-thermal effects and received oral and written evidence from a large number of interested persons. This included evidence from scientists who have been at the forefront of bringing to public attention potential concerns associated with alleged non-thermal effects, such as headaches, sleep disorders, epilepsy and leukaemia. The IEGMP's report was made public on 11 May 2000.
7.2 The main finding of the IEGMP was that the balance of evidence to date suggests exposure to radio frequency radiation within current guidelines issued by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) does not cause adverse health effects to the general population; but more research should be undertaken. In the light of this finding, a precautionary approach was recommended, as encapsulated in the recommendations of the IEGMP. In its response, the government has accepted that a precautionary approach should be adopted as recommended by the IEGMP.
7.3 A key element of the recommended precautionary approach was the adoption of the guidelines issued by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Accordingly paragraph 98 of the Supporting Guidance to PPG8 clearly indicates that it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application, to consider the health aspects and concerns about them further.
7.4 Indeed, health and safety falls under separate legislation. Paragraph 94 of the Supporting Guidance to PPG8 clearly indicates, "it is not for local planning authorities to seek to replicate those controls through the planning system." This applies therefore the usual principle of non-duplication between controls and so it is the health and safety regime that operates to protect public health and not the planning system.
7.5 PPG8 goes on to clarify in paragraph 101 of the Supporting Guidance that local authorities should not introduce a ban or moratorium on the construction of mobile phone masts or insist on minimum distances between new telecommunications development and existing development.
7.6 Under the ICNIRP guidelines there is a requirement for a safety exclusion zone (the ICNIRP Exclusion Zone) to prevent unauthorized or inadvertent access into the area where radio frequency emissions might be in excess of the guideline thresholds. This is because it is only inside the ICNIRP Exclusion Zone that scientific research (that has taken place over many years into both thermal and non-thermal effects) confirms that exposure (usually long term) could bring about biological effects that might be harmful to health.
7.7 The extent of the ICNIRP Exclusion Zone can vary dependent on the antenna type, frequency, modulation characteristics and power output, which differ between operators and different types of installations. The design of all installations for mobile operators on Arqiva sites is carried out to satisfy the relevant ICNIRP guidelines. The same of course applies to all their broadcasting installations.
7.8 Thus, whatever the extent of the ICNIRP Exclusion Zone for mobile communications / broadcasting equipment installed on an Arqiva site, it will not be accessible to any member of the general public. For employees or contractors visiting the site to work on the structure and/or antennas, clearly defined warning signs and physical barriers will exist to prevent inadvertent access to areas that might be within the ICNIRP threshold.
7.9 In all areas accessible to the public, the equipment on existing Arqiva installations already complies with the applicable guidelines.
7.10 Confirmation can therefore be given that new equipment on existing installations or additional installations proposed for mobile communications will comply with the guidelines adopted by ICNIRP in all areas accessible by the public and in respect of this proposed development, a certificate dated 20th November 2006 is attached. Additionally, an RF Emissions Report dated 21st November 2006 is enclosed.
7.11 The Court of Appeal has recently clarified the advice given in paragraph 98 of the Supporting Guidance of PPG8 in relation to a case brought against the grant of planning permission of a mobile base station in Harrogate. In particular, the Court of Appeal clearly stated that it was only in exceptional circumstances that the planning system should consider perceived health concerns. By implication, the circumstances of the shared site in Harrogate, close to existing schools and the subject of considerable opposition based on a perceived risk did not amount to such exceptional circumstances.
7.12 In summary, in England, there is no policy basis for refusing an application through the perception of risk or potential or alleged effects on well - being and we believe this precedent would hold true on the IOM too. Moreover, to refuse planning permission on such a basis would be tantamount to an ad hoc moratorium or ban, contrary to specific policy against such action.
7.13 The precautionary principle as found in the Maastricht Treaty does not impose any
additional action by central or local government over and above the action already taken, which now includes adopting the precautionary approach as recommended by the IEGMP and accepted by government. Article 174 of the EC treaty applies only in respect of policy-making at the EU level, and not to policy-making by individual member states.
7.14 To date, the UK Government and the Courts have decided that the normal operation of the planning system that includes the right to challenge decisions by way of judicial review provides the right of individuals to a fair hearing. Thus any decision to grant planning permission would be consistent with Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are not aware of any particular stance by the IOM Government.
7.15 A separate regulatory system exists to protect public safety. This can become more stringent in the future, requiring compliance regardless of any planning permission. The grant of planning permission cannot take away that protection. For this reason alone, the right to respect private and family life, home and possessions as set out in Article 8(1) of the Convention is not contravened. In addition to infringing human rights in this respect any risk must be both real and imminent.
7.16 Article 8 (2) states that there shall be no unnecessary interference by a public authority with the right conferred under Article 8 (1). Even if the grant of planning permission did constitute such interference, it is necessary in a democratic society for such grants to be made in terms of the economic well-being of the country and other matters also specified under Article 8 (2). Moreover, any such grant of planning permission in this case would not place a disproportionate burden on the public such that it would result in a violation of the right under Article 8 (1).
7.17 Our observations on this issue are reinforced by the fact that no judicial review in the UK against the grant of permission of telecommunications development has succeeded on the grounds of any infringement of human rights. This is in spite of assertions made by certain action groups and their advisers.
7.18 In summary, this statement is adjudged to provide all the information required under current legislation and policy on health and safety and related issues. It clearly demonstrates that no reasonable basis for refusing planning permission exist, either directly or indirectly from unsubstantiated concerns that might be raised about health and safety.
8.1 Access to the site off the A5 and via the existing access track remains unaltered. Traffic generation, once the installations are completed, ought to be negligible and, being new equipment, it is not envisaged to require significant maintenance visits, especially over the temporary period required.
8.2 The new equipment cabinets are relatively small, certainly in comparison to the existing Arqiva building and their finished colour can be to suit the preference of the authority. The design of the mast is of course functional and the choice of design has been made to minimise the width and provide a tapering structure, within the operational and structural
requirements prevailing. The site is allocated as a telecommunications facility and these structures are consistent with the type and form and design of equipment which is expected to be found on such sites. The existing 10m monopole will be removed from site once the Manx Telecom equipment has been transferred over to the new tower.
8.3 We therefore consider that there is little more we can say in this instance regarding design & access of this development but, if the Authority do feel that further explanation / detail is need, we would be happy to provide this upon request.
9.0 Conclusions
9.1 Arqiva Richmond Hill Transmitting Station has been in existence for many years and at one time, hosted a 61m high tower for which foundations remain in-situ. Notwithstanding the rural and prominent setting, we believe that most local spectators accept the site for what it is and indeed, the local plan has designated the site as a transmitting station. Telecommunications structures in the countryside are not always considered obtrusive even if they are prominent and ironically, the largest of these structures are now attracting heritage interest to the extent that the Arqiva Emley Moor Transmitting Station near Huddersfield in West Yorkshire, England, a 330m high concrete structure, has now been granted Grade II Listed Building status!
9.2 Need for the systems are clear and each of the operators have demonstrated the coverage achievable, if there desired elevation on the tower can be secured. Arqiva's Richmond Hill site forms an important part of the islands mobile network for Manx Telecom and the desire is to provide the same services for Cable & Wireless and Cloud 9, for the Douglas region and the principle highway network to and from the port areas. The BBC DAB Radio service will benefit communities on an even wider scale over the entire SE of the island.
9.3 There are no alternative sites available in the area to accommodate these installations, especially the BBC DAB antennas and the site is recognised as a preferred telecommunications site. Accordingly, we consider that this scheme represents the optimum, perhaps the only solution available, to deliver these radio and mobile communication services in the long term.
9.4 As stated above, the structure design is an honest representation of it's function and is the optimum solution to minimise visual impact. Notwithstanding that there will be a degree of harm to the immediate locality and wider landscape, we consider that the national strategic importance of these services are sufficient to outweigh any harm.
9.5 Finally, we would mention the fact that Drawing No. DO.FS - 20286, sheet 1 of 1, Rev.A contains a typographical error in that it states that the two mid section installations are both for Cable & Wireless. This is not the case, the lower installation of 6No. sector antennas and 6No. dishes being for Cloud 9 Mobile Communications. We apologise for this inadvertent oversight and revised drawings will be submitted as soon as possible.
We hope that the above supporting information is sufficient for the determination of the application but we are happy to provide additional information and / or meet with officers as appropriate. We would welcome a decision at the earliest possible opportunity, by delegation if at all possible and will do all we can to assist in achieving this.
12
We look forward to receiving your acknowledgement of safe receipt and the registration details of the application but in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned further as required.
Yours sincerely Ian Hewitt DipURP MRTPI Cc: Mike Smith - Arqiva.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown