Agenda item

Installation of a 15m high streetworks style telecommunications monopole and ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Installation of a 15m high streetworks style telecommunications monopole and ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance)

Following his declaration of interest, Councillor Dhillon left the room before the item was introduced.

Officers introduced the report, highlighting the addendum, and confirmed that the plan attached to the report related to an incorrect site. A corrected site plan was included within the presentation.

The Committee was informed that the proposal was for prior approval for the installation of a telecommunication mast and cabinets, on a central reservation on Station Road. Officers asserted that the installation would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding area, due to an increase in clutter. In addition, the applicant had not fully investigated alternative sites within the immediate and surrounding area. Officers highlighted that correspondence received from the applicant had confirmed that representations had been made to the owners of a nearby industrial estate, but that a reply had not been received. This did not preclude the applicant from potentially using the site, and it was felt that more effort should be made to this effect. For these reasons, it was recommended that the application be refused.

The Chairman confirmed that a petition in objection to the application had been received, but that the petitioner was not present. In addition, it was confirmed that petitioner had not included his reasons for the objection within the petition.

Members deliberated the matter, and sought clarity on a number of points. In response to questions, officers confirmed that as the proposed site was not on Green Belt land or in a Conservation Area, the likelihood of winning an appeal, should the application be refused, was low. If an appeal was upheld, conditions could be requested to the inspector to limit the number of cabinets associated with the mast.

Members were concerned that no information had been provided regarding areas of coverage for existing masts, the potential for mast sharing, and the reason for why the applicant felt the mast must be installed at the proposed location. Officers confirmed that they were satisfied that there was no possibility of mast sharing, and that information assessed by officers during the review of the application would have included existing mast coverage. It was reiterated that the reasons for recommending refusal were based on the detrimental impact the proposal would have on the street scene and local area.

Members shared the officers' concerns that the installation of the mast and cabinets would have a detrimental impact on the street scene due to clutter, and expressed concerns that the mast would dominate the skyline. Additional concerns included the potential precedent for additional technology and furniture to be installed at the site, should this application be allowed, which would removed valuable amenity space for residents. For these reasons, the recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.