Agenda item

Proposed 15.0m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wrapround Cabinet at base, 3 cabinets and associated ancillary works (General Permitted Development Order 2015 for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance)

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Proposed 15.0m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wrapround Cabinet at base, 3 cabinets and associated ancillary works (General Permitted Development Order 2015 for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance).

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner in objection of the application addressed the Committee and referred to photos that had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting and included in the officer’s presentation. Although the government was keen to for 5g network capacity, it was submitted that the location was inappropriate and a similar application only 100 metres from this site had been rejected previously. The proposed masts were hugely disproportionate in a residential area and constituted a significant eye sore in a pretty wildlife area. It would be visible from the retail parade 200 metres away and a potential hazard on the busy routes and island roundabout used by children and parents. The visual intrusion could not be justified. Locating the masts across the road may mitigate visual impact, however it was submitted that this was incorrect, and policies protected the outlook for residents.  The masts would loom from nearby properties. It was submitted that the planning report had incorrectly cited the distance and it was explained how the proposed masts breached policies impacting residents. The Committee was asked to take all these factors into consideration and recognise the strength of feeling raised by the petitioners. 

By way of written submissions, Ward Councillor for Manor addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Councillor Markham supported the petitions submitted and made reference to an application that was refused last year by reason of the size and siting of the proposed monopole and the size, scale and siting of the equipment cabinets, would create an obtrusive form of development which would add visual clutter to the detriment of the character, appearance and visual amenities of the street scene.  It was noted that new application before the Committee simply moved the mast 180 Meters to the north east. It did not comply with the reasons for refusal given for the previous application. The Committee was urged to take into account reasons for refusal given last year as they were relevant this time as they were last. Members were urged to put local residents first and to refuse the application.

Although the Committee was keen to support 5g infrastructure, it was noted they had been in appropriate places. The proposed development would impact green space, impact the street scene and be in contrary to policies. Members also noted that this was busy location and the cabinets would also be out of character. Members discussed overturning the officers recommendation on the grounds that:

The proposed development by reason of the size and siting of the proposed monopole and the size, scale and siting of the equipment cabinets, would create an obtrusive form of development which would add visual clutter to the detriment of the character, appearance and visual amenities of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Policies (2020).

A motion to overturn the officer’s recommendations on the stated refusal reason was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed at a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.