Proposed 25m high lattice tower equipped with 3 antennas, 2 no. 600mm transmission dishes, 2 ground based equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto.

Proposed 25m high lattice tower equipped with 3 antennas, 2 no. 600mm transmission dishes, 2 ground based equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto.

The Central Team Leader advised that an application had been inadvertently omitted from the planning history section of the report.  It was noted that application 01/1111 related to a 15m mast and associated equipment which had been refused due to the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the loss of flood plain.  In respect of the current application, the Central Team Leader advised that the Environment Agency did not object on the grounds of flood risk, subject to conditions, following changes in categorization. 

The Central Team Leader reported the receipt of 22 letters of objection from local residents and other parties.  He advised that the letters raised similar concerns to those summarised in the representations section of the report; particularly in relation to the perceived adverse impact on the Conservation Area, health risks, flooding susceptibility and inappropriate location.

The Central Team Leader also reported that the applicant had indicated that some of the proposed transmission dishes would not be required and could be removed from the proposal.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. R.F. Mudge (Barton West, Barton Road) spoke against the application and Mr. C. Searle (applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Mrs. E.M. Bew, a Local Ward Member, felt that local residents had raised some serious concerns and questioned why a telecommunications mast had been removed from a site nearby if coverage and capacity was still needed.  In response, the Central Team Leader advised that he understood that the mast referred to had not been granted permanent planning permission.

Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon felt that telecommunications companies operating in Herefordshire had not complied with PPG8, particularly in respect of consultation, planning and sharing of masts.  Other Members felt disappointed that the assurances given by representatives of the industry had not always been carried through in the County.

In response to questions, the Central Team Leader confirmed that one of the existing lighting columns would be replaced with the lattice mast which would carry both the telecommunications equipment and floodlights to serve Hereford Rugby Club.

Some Members felt that operators should be made to share masts and, if this application was approved, that no further masts should be erected in the vicinity.

Whilst the Sub-Committee noted current Government Guidance, some Members noted the concerns of residents about potential health risks of such equipment.

Councillor P.J. Edwards noted the importance of Great Western Way as a pedestrian and cyclist route and felt that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the locality.  It was noted that the mast would be visible above the tree line.

In response to Members’ concerns, the Central Team Leader commented that there was no evidence to suggest non-compliance with PPG8 and that the Environment Agency had not raised significant objections on the grounds of flood risk.  It was noted, however, that the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area was an important planning consideration in this instance.

RESOLVED:

That    (i)    The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application, subject to the reasons for refusal set out below and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning Services, provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1. detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

(ii)     If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note:  Following the vote on the above resolution, the Central Team Leader advised that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services given the reason for refusal provided by Members.]