Agenda item

Installation of a 14.8m high telecommunications monopole, associated equipment cabinet and ancillary developments works (Consultation Under Schedule 2, Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) (as amended).

Recommendation:

(A) Prior approval of siting and design is required

(B) Details of siting and design are refused

Installation of a 14.8m high telecommunications monopole, associated equipment cabinet and ancillary developments works (Consultation Under Schedule 2, Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) (as amended.)

This  application  had  been  submitted  by  Vodaphone  and  02  Orange  and  seeked  to determine whether prior approval  was  required  for  the  siting and design of a 14.8m high monopole  supporting  3  number Vodaphone  antennas  and  3  number  02  antennas,  the installation of an associated radio equipment cabinet and ancillary development works.

The  proposed  installations  would  be  located  in  the  centre  of  a  roundabout  nestled between  6  existing  trees. To  the  north west  and  north  east  of  the  site  are  a  series  of detached  and  semi-detached  houses,  to  the  south  of  the  site  is  King College  Playing Fields containing the Kings College Pavilion and the Eastcote Hockey & Badminton Club and  their  respective  car  parks. The  site  and  its  immediate  surroundings  had  a  verdant quality to it, was populated with trees, and was generally free of an excess of street furniture that can give rise to a sense of clutter within the streetscape.

The  installation  of  the  telecommunication mast  and  associated  cabinet would  have  an adverse  impact upon  the  visual amenity  value gained  from  the  trees  located within  the roundabout,  be  detrimental  to  the  general  streetscene  and  to  the  setting  of  the  high quality public open spaces located to the south of the site that is designated as forming part of a Green Chain  link.

The applicant had  failed  to demonstrate  that the  trees will  be  unaffected  by  the  development  and  had  not made  provision  for  their long-term protection. As such, refusal, was recommended on these grounds.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting:

• Mr John Scrivens addressed the Committee on behalf of the petition submitted against the application.
• In 2006 Mr Scrivens had spoken in regard to a phone mast application that was submitted by Orange.
• He was surprised a Vodafone application had been submitted since.
• The phone mast would be visually intrusive.
• The health effects needed to be considered.
• The landscaping trees officer objected to the application as it would result in some of the tree roots being destroyed and trees dying. This, in-turn, would mean that the phone mast would not be hidden.
• The mature trees had wide trunks and these would be difficult to replace.
• The petitioner stated that Vodafone sold a ‘sure signal’ device on their website which was box around the size of a modem. This device helped to get good signal and cost around £50. This was something that could be looked into.
• He stated that as all mobile phone companies used similar technology that this in-turn should reduce the need for phone masts.
• Resident views should be considered rather than occasional users who drove past the area.
• There was a genuine depth of feelings against this application. 

The agent was not present and therefore did not address the Committee.

Members felt that this application set an incredibly bad precedent, that it was on the approach to a roundabout and agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.