Agenda item

Installation of a rooftop base station to accommodate 6 antenna apertures, 4 600mm dishes, 9 cabinets and associated ancillary development thereto

Recommendations: Refusal

Installation of a rooftop base station to accommodate 6 antenna apertures, 4 600mm dishes, 9 cabinets and associated ancillary development thereto.

Prior to the commencement of this item, Councillor Brightman returned to the meeting.

Officers introduced the item noting that Spitfire House was part of the recent St Andrew’s Park development which was originally the RAF Uxbridge site. Officers informed Members were informed that there had been a substantial response to consultations on the application for the installation of telecommunications equipment on the roof of Spitfire House. The application was deemed by officers to be unacceptable for reasons of its prominent positioning and size, which would increase the buildings height from approximately 14m to just under 20m. Officers also highlighted that a number of listed buildings were situated opposite to the site, increasing its detrimental impact.

A petition in objection to the application had been received and written representations from the lead petitioner were read out for the consideration of the Committee. Key points raised included:

• That the visual impact of the proposals would be intrusive and out of character with the local environs;
• That the immediate area was suburban, and the proposed substation would be seen as incongruously urban for the vicinity;
• The development would be unsightly;
• The proposals did not adhere to article BE1 of Hillingdon’s Strategic Plan;
• Residents of the building would be subject to building works, the stress of potential damage to their building and engineers on the roof of the building.

The agent had also submitted written representations which were read out for the consideration of the Committee. Key points raised included:

• The need for this development was due to the necessary removal of an existing telecommunications base station on a rooftop at Brunel University; a replacement mast within a short radius was required to ensure continued coverage;
• The need for digital connectivity infrastructure was of paramount importance as demand had shifted from city centres and places of work to residential and suburban areas;
• The apparatus would have a galvanised-steel finish which would naturally weather and increasingly assimilate to its background setting over time;
• The operators would support customers and residents by ensuring as little disruption as possible;
• The continued and enhanced network services which would be brought forward by the application would greatly outweigh any perceived visual impact that may be caused by the proposed development;
• EE was to become the Emergency Services Network Provider and would dedicate the 4G network for Police, Fire, and Ambulance services.

Written representations had also been received from Councillor David Yarrow, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North. These were read out for the consideration of Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• Concerns were raised as to construction and engineering personnel accessing the site at potentially antisocial hours attending to faults or maintenance needs;
• The use of the RAF Uxbridge site was intended for a prestigious housing development and not for any ancillary facilities;
• The Committee were encouraged to support the officer’s recommendation of refusal.

Before the debate, Members attention was drawn to the published addendum.

The Committee highlighted that the chosen site was not an ideal location for this type of development, it was residential on all sides and Members agreed that the proposals were visually intrusive and would increase the buildings height by the equivalent to one storey, this was seen to give the building an unbalanced aesthetic. Members raised concerns regarding whether the “galvanised-steel finish” of the telecommunications equipment would in fact assimilate to its background over time.

The Committee questioned why, seeing as the existing telecommunications equipment at Brunel University needed to be removed and re-sited close by, alternative sites on the Brunel campus had not appeared to be considered by developers.

Members noted the prominent position of the building, adjacent to Hillingdon Road and opposite from a number of listed buildings; the Committee were minded to strengthen refusal reason one to include reference to the visual impact upon the listed buildings opposite. Officers informed the Committee that this would require the inclusion of reference to policies that come with listed buildings and heritage sites, and as such, the wording of the strengthened refusal reason should be delegated to the Head of Planning; Members agreed to this.

With regard to refusal reason two, Members were minded to expand the reference to the properties opposite Spitfire House on Churchill Road to include numbers 2, 4, 14, 16 and 18, and to also include reference to the properties on Lacey Grove, to the rear of Spitfire House.

The officer’s recommendation, with the additions discussed and agreed by Members, was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused;

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to expand upon the wording used for refusal reason one to include the listed buildings opposite Spitfire House; and

3)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to expand upon the wording used for refusal reason two to expand the reference to neighbouring properties on Churchill Road and Lacey Grove.