Agenda item

15M Telecommunications Pole, 6 No. Antennas and Associated Equipment.

15M Telecommunications Pole, 6 No. Antennas and Associated Equipment.

Consideration was given to the report of the Principal Planning Officer (Easington Area Office) which recommended the application for approval. The Principal Planning Officer explained that members had visited the site that day, and gave a detailed presentation on the main issues outlined in the report.

Councillor Todd the Local Ward Member indicated that he had received representations from residents and Shotton School. Concerns were raised with regard to the effects of Health on hundreds of children who attended the School. He indicated that there were arguments on both sides and the situation with regard to the effects was not clear so he would ask that members err on the side of caution as the antenna could be placed further into the estate. He asked that members consider the possible adverse effects on school children and residents.

Ms Ramshaw speaking on behalf of Shotton Primary School indicated that 400 children attended the school and they needed to know that they were safe now and in the next 10 years. There was no real firm grounds to say 100% sure that there was no harm to children. The Health and Safety of pupils must come first and they had great concerns of a new mast so close to the school.

The Principal Planning Officer (Easington Area Office) indicated that he sympathised with the school but planning could only go on the advice provided by the Government and that all the necessary requirements had been met. He also indicated that there was a current mast in close proximity which was granted approval last year and refusal would be difficult to justify in view of the close proximity of the other mast.

Councillor Charlton indicated that she did not know how the application could be refused in view of the close proximity of a current mast at the site.

Councillor Blakey asked if there was an alternative site. The Principal Planning Officer indicated that this site was the preferred option.

Councillor Bell indicated that he was unable to support the application as he was not convinced that the option to share the current mast had been fully investigated and the parachute centre owned land which was further away from residents and the school which could be used.

Resolved: That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions contained in the report.