Agenda item

Prior notification for installation of 15m Phase 9 monopole together with wraparound cabinet at base, 3no. ancillary equipment cabinets, and associated ancillary works.

The Planning Officer, Michelle Penman gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was for prior notification for installation of 15m Phase 9 monopole together with wraparound cabinet at base, 3no. ancillary equipment cabinets, and associated ancillary works and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted that the prior notification application was only considering the siting and appearance, not the principle of the development and that should Members be minded to approve the prior notification, it would be subject to the amended plans showing the reduced height of the monopole and stipulating the colour as being fir green (RAL).

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Parish Councillor Patrick Conway to speak on behalf of Belmont Parish Council in relation to the application.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that the Parish Council recognised that in the 21st Century there was a need for 5G connectivity and understood the need for such development to take place.  He added the Parish Council welcomed the reduction in height from an original 20 metres down to 15 metres, however, he noted that the applicant had not engaged with the Parish Council or Residents’ Association on proposed alternative sites.

Parish Councillor P Conway explained that only two of the three nearby schools had been contacted, with St. Joseph’s RC Primary School having not been contacted.  He noted this demonstrated that the consultation had not been as thorough as it should have been.  He noted that there had been public health concerns raised, noting that the Durham Alliance for Community Care operated their clinic nearby six days a week.  He added that while the report indicated that information was that a health risk was ‘unlikely’ he noted that the ‘jury was still out’.  He reiterated that there were a number of alternative sites put forward, and there was no need for the monopole at this site, others could accommodate it.

Parish Councillor P Conway noted that paragraph 34 of the report referred to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 115 which was clear in stating that the ‘number of radio and electronic communications masts, and the sites for such installations, should be kept to a minimum’.  He explained that the Parish Council did not feel there was sufficient evidence in terms of need and noted over the last two to three months there had been two similar applications, and he was sure there would be more within the city and wider county.  He added that, bearing in mind NPPF paragraph 115, the Parish Council felt it would be very helpful if the Local Authority would look at supplementary planning documents (SPDs) that would help support the County Durham Plan (CDP) in respect of such masts, and that it would be a good opportunity now to look at the issue regardless of the decision made by Committee on this particular application.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor P Conway and asked Carole Lattin, representing the Gilesgate Residents’ Association to speak in relation to the application.

C Lattin thanked the Chair and the Committee and noted she would echo the comments from the Parish Council and would add that the representations received from residents were numerous and that not all were set out on the Planning Portal.  She explained that people did not object in principle, rather it was felt this particular mast was in the wrong place.  She added that the same network had several other monopoles in the area, with one less than 300 metres away from the proposed site, a more appropriate siting.  She explained that the applicant had not engaged with the Parish Council or Residents’ Association, with no contact prior to the application being submitted.  C Lattin noted that paragraph 31 of the Officer’s report set out that the application was for the siting and visual appearance, and not the principle, and she noted that while the proposed height had been reduced by five metres, it was still 15 metres, next to a single storey building, Keiper Clinic.  She added that in comparison to the Clinic and bungalows at Whitwell Court the proposed mast was three times the height and would affect the skyline and visual profile of the area. 

She noted that those best placed to judge the impact were those that encountered the area on a daily basis, adding that all three County Councillors, the Parish Council and Residents’ Association had all made representations against the proposals, with a lot of the representations made citing a loss of visual amenity.  She noted that the Residents’ Association recommended a review of policy and would urge developers to contact local community to help find suitable sites to help cut out such numerous objections in the future.

The Chair thanked C Lattin and asked the Planning Officer to comment on the points raised by the speakers.

The Planning Officer explained that there was a level of consideration given to other sites, they had been discounted, with the applicant submitting documents to show the site was the ideal location, sited to the south to avoid the residential area and to not be sited on a footpath.  She added some of the alternative sites mentioned by objectors had been discussed, with one on the A690 having been discounted as it would not be safe in terms of any maintenance works.  She noted that there was a mast north east of the site and the proposals were to target a hole in coverage.  Accordingly, Officers were satisfied that alternative site had been looked at.  As regards any health concerns, the Planning Officer noted she understood the point being made, however, paragraph 118 of the NPPF noted that Planning Authorities should not look to set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor K Robson noted he would have liked to hear from the applicant as regards the points raised by the speakers.  The Chair noted that there was no representative from the applicant at Committee, their comments and information being as set out by the Planning Officer in her report and presentation.

Councillor R Manchester noted there appeared to be no concerns raised and that while points had been made as regards local consultation, they were outside of determination of the application.  He proposed the application be approved as per the Officer’s report and presentation.  He was seconded by Councillor S Deinali.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That Prior Approval be APPROVED, subject to the conditions as set out within the report, including a condition relating to the amended plans which includes details of the proposed colour.