Agenda item

Installation of mast and associated apparatus.

The Planning Officer, David Richards 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 Senior Planning Officer advised that some Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the installation of mast and associated apparatus, and the recommendation was that prior notification was required, and that such prior notification be refused, for the reasons as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer noted the aerial photos showed the nearby leisure centre and area of high landscape value (AHLV).  He noted there had been 32 letters of objection, including from the local MP Graham Morris.  He added that in terms of prior notification, the applicant was required to demonstrate that existing sites had been exhausted, and Officer had not felt that was the case.  He concluded by noting the mast was 20 metres, a significant height which would be unduly prominent in the area.

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and asked Councillor T Duffy, Local Member, to speak in respect of the application.

Councillor T Duffy thanked the Chair and Committee and the Officer for his report and presentation.  He noted the many objections from local residents and the MP as set out by the Officer.  He explained that he was not denying that there was a need for such masts for communication, however, the proposed site was not suitable, with better locations nearby, such as on the leisure centre building or police station.  He noted the issues that has been raised locally in terms of parking charges at the community hospital that had led to displaced parking, and any granting of permission for the 20-metre-high mast would be a further impact upon those local residents.

The Chair thanked Councillor T Duffy and asked local residents who were in objection to the application to speak.

R Scott noted he was a local resident, and also a Town Councillor, however he was speaking in his capacity as resident.  He explained he lived in the area just off O’Neill Drive adjacent to Castle Eden Dene and while the area was within the town centre, it retained a more rural feel.  He explained that a mast of 20 metres in height would be out of character with the area, especially on the entrance into the estate, impacting upon all that lived there. 

He noted there was a statement in terms of every effort being taken to camouflage the mast, however, at that height it would be significantly higher than all the surrounding trees and would be incongruous.  He added there were far better suited areas in the more commercial areas nearby.  He noted the applicant had noted that it would take ‘too long’ to secure alternative land, however, he felt that it was simply a matter of money, with NPPF Paragraph 121(c) stating that ‘For a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure…’.  He noted several examples nationally where this had been cause to reject such masts and urged Members to concur with their Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

P Wilding noted he too was a local resident and concurred with the comments from the Planning Officer and R Scott.  He explained that the majority of the local residents felt the mast was far too large and also far too close to residential properties.  He reiterated that Government advice was to reduce the size of masts where possible and to explore alternative sites, again with no evidence of such site being considered.  He noted previously refused applications and that the proposed mast was too close to properties.  He noted Peterlee was a new town, deliberately designed without overhead power lines and large masts and poles.  He noted that the land was in the ownership of the Council and noted that the Council could recommend to asset management to reject any siting of equipment.

The Chair thanked R Scott and P Wilding and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor A Bell explained he had attended the site visit, and it had been very clear that it was the wrong location for the siting of such a large mast.  He noted a smaller pole located further around from the site and suggested that could be an alternative the applicant may wish to seek.  He moved the Officer’s recommendation, that prior notification was required and that such prior notification be refused.  The Principal Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings noted that a key aspect was discounting alternative sites, and with a number of existing buildings in the area, Officer had not felt the applicant had gone through that process sufficiently to give justification for their preferred site.

Councillor J Elmer noted he too had attended the site visit it and agreed that a 20-metre-high mast was huge, and he was very concerned of the impact on local residents and has almost been against the application at that point.  He added he did not think it was possible for such a mast to be located at the site and felt that the applicant had not considered other site and therefore he would second the motion proposed by Councillor A Bell.

Councillor L Brown noted that she had also attended the site visit and had similar thoughts to those of Councillor A Bell and J Elmer.  She noted the reference to the proximity to the AHLV, and given the scale of the mast, she too would support the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor C Kay noted he had been involved in work relating to such monopoles for the last 20 years.  He noted that while they were required, and required to be tall in order to operate on line-of-sight, the proposal would be visual incongruent.  He noted in his local area, a similar pole had been incorporated on to Bishop Auckland College in order to better blend in, and he felt a similar solution would be beneficial for the people of Peterlee.  The Principal Planning Officer noted each proposal for a mast would be judged upon its own merits, with the Bishop Auckland College site having been the developer’s preferred site in that case. 

She added that there was always a greater impact when in residential areas and reiterated that Officers felt in this case that there could be an opportunity for alternative locations to be considered.  Councillor C Kay noted he could not disagree with the comments from the Officers.

Councillor P Jopling explained she had attended the site and felt it really was the wrong place, too close to the nearby nursery and not worth any potential risk to the children in her opinion.  She noted the site was also very close to residential properties and felt the Officer’s recommendation was the correct call.  She noted she too felt there were other better suited areas, such as the leisure centre, albeit likely more expensive adding she felt that may have been a deciding factor in terms of the application.

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) asked Councillor J Elmer if he had made up his mind as regards the application prior to Committee.  Councillor J Elmer noted he had not made up his mind in advance and would have been happy to have been persuaded at Committee that the application was acceptable, however, he had not been convinced and supported the Officer’s recommendation.

The Chair noted Councillor A Bell had moved that the application be approved, he had been seconded by Councillor J Elmer and upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED:

That prior notification was required and REFUSED for the reasons as set out within the Committee Report.