Agenda item

Installation of a 12.5m monopole supporting 6 shrouded antennas (Application under Part 16 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: Application was refused.

Officer introduced the report and noted the addendum. Officers clarified that the report implied that this application was an upgrade to an existing mast, when it was in fact an application for a new mast. Members were advised that they could only consider the mast itself and not associated cabinets which fell under permitted development. Since a previous application, the applicant had reduced the diameter and changed the colour of the proposed mast.

A petitioner spoke in objection, and raised the following points:

·         This was the fourth application for a mast at the location, and the applicant did not understand or address residents' concerns.

·         The application had changed and the number of cabinets reduced, but this remained an unspoiled green area, and the wrong site for a mast.

·         Several locations had been discounted based on trees and views from Swakeleys House, but seemingly the views of residents were not relevant.

·         The application had overstated the problem of trees, and in fact good practice was to conceal masts in trees.

·         This location had only been chosen due to access to the phone network and power, considerations that were only relevant to the applicant's costs.

·         The applicant's assessment that the mast would be assimilated into the surroundings was incorrect.

A representative of the applicant spoke in support, and raised the following points:

·         The application had been adjusted for bulk and colour in order to help hide it in trees. This compromise minimised the impact on the conservation area.

·         The mast would provide much needed 3G and 4G capacity to the area.

·         A similar pole, on the edge of the green belt, was noted by the appeal inspector not to impact on the green belt.

·         Alternative sites have repeatedly been sought, but this was the best technical location.

·         There was no material reason to suggest a refusal.

A ward councillor spoke and raised the following points:

·         Swakeleys Park offered an alternative site.

·         With the anticipated arrival of 5G coverage, this could be permitted with a larger pole away from houses.

·         The applicant wants to site the mast right by the roadway, and not set back.

·         The developer images of the site were helpful, but the angles were selective and did not show the proximity of housing.

A Member of the Committee referenced the report of the conservation officer that the application was in an open, green area of land as a reason why the proposed location was unsuitable. Officers responded that the applicant had provided a detailed survey of other sites and none had been found to be suitable. Members were reminded that this had not been a previous reason for refusal.

Members requested a comparison of the previous application, to which officers responded that the applicant had in their view gone to sufficient lengths to address concerns over the visual impact for reasons of bulk and colour. Members discussed the extent to which changes to the application had reduced the visual prominence of the mast. Though one member expressed support for the applicant's changes, other Members of the Committee expressed discomfort with the prominence of the mast.

A motion for refusal was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote was agreed with 7 Members in favour with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

-       That the application was refused.