**Document:** Officer Planning Report **Application:** 05/00844/B — Installation of 12.5 metre high monopole, internally accommodating 6 No antennas, an external transmission dish, a ground based equipment cabin (3m x 2m) and ancillary development **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2005-08-09 **Parish:** Patrick **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/78191-patrick-at-ballnalargy-dalby-telecoms-mast/documents/1440883 --- # Officer Planning Report ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations Mr _ Mrs K W Doyle Mr M Smith _ Mrs M Lyod Jane & Davis Shaw ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ## Policy ### Officer's Report This application relates to a small part of a field at Ballnalargy (no. 334424) between Dalby and Glenmaye. The site is within an area designated as being of high landscape value and scenic significance. The proposal is to erect a 12.5 metre high monopole, internally accommodating 6 antennas, an external transmission dish, a ground based equipment cabin (3m x 2m) and ancillary development. The site is currently in agricultural use and is being used as a sheep fold. There is a dry stone wall along one boundary with a hedgerow which will partially screen the cabin and an existing post and wire fence around the rest of the field. There have been four letters of objection, two expressing some concerns and the Commissioners wish to reserve their comments. Mrs. S Reufin, Gore Lea, Dalby is strongly against the proposal and states it should be located where there are no houses and wishes to protect the scenic value fo the area. Mr. Smith and Mrs. Lloyd, Dalby residents voice strong opposition, say it will devalue houses, ruin the landscape and it should be placed higher away from houses. Mr. and Mrs. Doyle, Ballacallin Farm House consider that it should be rejected because Dalby is one of the few unspoilt areas of the island and the same reasons for rejection remain as for previous appeals. Mr. and Mrs. Shaw, Ballnallargy, object because it is close to family houses, a health risk and should be placed further up hill away from habitation. They are concerned that it may develop inot a major communication centre used for transmission of other types of signal. SPMCE expressed concern regarding the proposed mast and Manx National Heritage wanted the committee to see whether reasons for refusal have been overcome and consider that the coverage maps are inconsistent. They think it could be possible to improve the coverage by using the Glen Maye mast to greater effect. Two previous applications for monopoles in this area were refused at appeal. The Inspector felt there needed to be a balance between the provision of equipment to enable people to communicate electronically and the protection of the environment especially in areas designated of high landscape value. Although he considered that the harm was not particularly great he felt that the application was premature pending a wider investigation of the need for coverage and in particular why two structures were required so close to the Glen Maye facility. The decision was said to be finely balanced but the scheme should be looked at again in a wider context to see if alternative more suitable sites could be available that cause less harm. The plans now submitted show one mast between Dalby and Glen Maye and indicate an increase in coverage to the west of Foxdale and south of Ballnalargy. It is only a small additional area that will be covered along the A 27 and to the south of Foxdale and there are only a limited number of houses in this rural area. The agent advises that the need is proven by Manx Telecom's interest in the site and that they would not outlay the capital expenditure to build an unnecessary site. With regard to alternative sites the agent has advised that this is the best location they are able to get permission to use. They have submitted some photographs to indicate that the impact on the landscape will be limited. In regard to the health issues raised there is no evidence to indicate that there will be adverse health risks form the mast and the applicant has submitted a certificate issued by ICNIRP to say that the proposal is in compliance with EU recommended guidelines to indicate that there will be no health risks. The nearest house is around 100 metres away. The applicant has tried to address the issues that were raised in the first appeals. They have included coverage maps to show the additional area likely to be covered by the proposed mast. This area is relatively small but the agent asserts it is important or Manx Telecom would not be prepared to invest in the structure and the mast will provide some cover where currently there is none. With regard to the impact of the structure the pole is situated in an area where there are already telegraph poles and will be similar to the poles in appearance although it will be several metres taller than these. The impact of the cabin will be reduced to some extent by the wall and hedge on one side. Given that this is an area of high landscape value the question is whether the need for the mast outweighs the impact on the landscape. Again the argument is finely balanced but the location of the mast means that it will be less visible from the main road and the impact will be reduced due to the rising land at this point. Although small there will be additional coverage along the A27 and Manx Telecom feel there is sufficient justification to provide a mast in this location. On balance this would appear a better solution than the two previous applications. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: ### 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 approval relates to drawing numbers 001, 002, and 003 date stamped received on 29th April 2005. C 3. The pole and cabinet must be painted green in colour. Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ... --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/78191-patrick-at-ballnalargy-dalby-telecoms-mast/documents/1440883*