**Document:** Officer Planning Report **Application:** 06/02105/B — Installation of a 15m high monopole mast with associated equipment cabinets **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2007-02-26 **Parish:** Malew **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/82161-malew-area-of-land-within-telecoms-mast/documents/1486565 --- # 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 [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Consultations ### Officer's Report #### Site - The application site is within the grounds of the MEA Substation off Malew Road to the North West edge of Castletown. - The site is within an area zoned as electricity sub station. - There a number of telegraph poles converging at the sub station. - To the south of the application site is an agricultural field and beyond that is the residential property of Gardenfield, which is set approximately 50m from the application site - The Isle of Man Steam Railway is located approximately 120m to the south of the application. - The Football club to the north of the substation has a number of lighting columns. ### Proposed Development - The application is proposing to install a 15m high monopole mast with associated equipment cabinets. - The mast, antennas and dishes will be painted brown. - Three equipment cabinets will be installed on site. These will measure as follows: - Electrical meter cabinet - 1m x 0.32 x 1.1m - Equipment cabinet - 0.915m x 0.68m x 1.94m - Power One PSU - 0.8m x 0.85m x 1.94m - The cabinets will have a grey finish. ### Development Plan Policies - Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Castletown Local Plan) Order 1990. - Isle of Man Strategic Plan (Modified Draft) (November 2004) ### Planning History - None of relevance to the determination of this application. ### Representations - Castletown Commissioners have not made any representations. - The occupiers of Gardenfield, Malew Road have objected to the application on the following grounds: - The mast is nearly 50 feet high this would intrude on our outlook and presumably because of the proximity of the airport the said mast would have a permanent red light on it. This would be to the detriment of our views of the Manx countryside and hills which we currently enjoy, not only in the day time but also in the evenings. - As life long residents of Castletown we believe that a 50 feet high mast would be detrimental to the sky line of Castletown and would be visible from all approaching routes into the Town. - Castletown's skyline is dominated by Castle Rushen and any development that is proposed now or in the future on the outskirts of Castletown should always have to take this into consideration. A 50 feet high mast would not be in keeping with the character of Castletown. - The proposed mast will impair any views that residents of Castletown and in particular residents of Ballalough and School hill estates have of the southern hills i.e. South Barrule, Cronk Ny Arrey Laa, The Sloc etc. - If the proposed mast was to be no higher than the existing MEA buildings or even no higher that the existing high voltage supply poles we would have no objection. - Whilst we appreciate and welcome competition for the mobile telephone network, we would suggest that there should be no requirement for any new masts to be erected anywhere on the Isle of Man. User agreement should be negotiated with existing mast owners. - 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 (the applicant) and Wire9, through its Manx subsidiary Cloud9. - 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 to provide coverage to Castletown, which is a difficult area to cover as there are no existing telecoms structures and no available rooftops to provide the height required to cover Castletown. - The applicant acknowledges that Castletown itself has a significant amount of historic buildings and the visual amenity must be carefully considered in order that it be protected as much as possible. Buildings which have been investigated and discounted due to the fact their structures were not capable of holding telecoms equipment and unable to provide good enough coverage are the Canada Life Building on Bank Street and The George Hotel. - It should be noted that The George Hotel is a registered building. This would be another constraint to installing telecoms equipment to the building. - The applicant has also considered the Fire station and may have provided some localised coverage but its position is very visible and the Chief Fire Officer would not allow the applicant to use the structure. - The applicant has also considered the builders yard off Athol Terrace. However, the yard owner is not interested in allowing an installation to be erected at the yard. - Another discounted option is the football club. However, the applicant has discounted the site as it was felt not to offer as much screening and has more open views from Malew Road and therefore not as good visually. - In terms of the impact from the Castletown Bypass and the Isle of Man Steam Railway, the mast will be set approximately 130m away from the public highway and approximately 120m from the railway line. The site has an existing 10m telegraph pole with a small Omni antenna. It's the applicant's intention to remove the existing structure and to install a new 15m monopole. The monopole will be visible within the locality along with a number of other vertical elements in the vicinity of the application namely telegraph poles and lighting columns. This is not an additional vertical structure within the landscape as it is a direct replacement for an existing telegraph pole. The only really consideration is whether the proposed increase in height from 10m to 15m is acceptable. The proposed increase would be noticeable but these are distant views. The site is already used for public utilities in the form of a substation. The mast and its antennas and dishes will be colour coasted to make them less intrusive with the area. On balance I do not feel the proposed mast would adversely affect the visual amenities of the locality. - The proposed equipment cabinets are of standard design and size and will be grey and will have limited impact on the visual amenities of the area. - The proposed mast will not be directly overlooked the residential property of Gardenfield. There is substantial landscaping between the application site and the residential property along with trees and hedging along the boundary of the Gardenfield. The proposal is set a significant distance away from the property. I do not feel the proposed mast would adversely affect the residential environment of Gardenfield. - 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 a site of an existing telegraph pole within the MEA Substation. This 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 in an industrial in nature 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 and the cumulative impact on the Manx landscape. Since the site is located in an industrial in nature 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. The occupiers of Gardenfield comply with the requirements of Government Circular 1/06. I therefore recommend that Party Status be afforded to them. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.02.2007 ## 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 15m monopole mast with associated equipment cabinets as shown in drawing numbers 021051, 071/010 Issue A, 071/012 Issue A, 017/013 Issue A, 071/014 Issue B, 071/016 Issue A, 071/017 Issue A dated stamped 6th December 2006, Supporting statement prepared by CH2M Hill dated 30th November 2006, Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines dated 01/12/06. ### C 3. Within one month of the installation of the mast, antennas and transmission dishes 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. ### C 4. In the event of the monopole mast 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. I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Fund Officer) Decision Made : Permitted Date: 22/4/05 22/2/07 Signed: [Handwritten signature] M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control --- *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/82161-malew-area-of-land-within-telecoms-mast/documents/1486565*