Installation of a 15m monopole, 6 no. radio antennas, 2 no. transmission dishes, 2 no. equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto.

Installation of a 15m monopole, 6 no. radio antennas, 2 no. transmission dishes, 2 no. equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the following:

§         Further information had been received from the applicant’s agent and was summarised as follows:  if a mast share was proposed, the total height of the new mast would need to be 20 to 21 metres; the additional antennas were required, irrespective of whether the Herefordshire College of Technology antennas were removed, in order to provide additional network capacity; Court papers had been served on Vodaphone by the Herefordshire College of Technology terminating their existing lease; additional plans had been provided identifying the height of the proposed mast in relation to the existing mast and trees around the site; and additional coverage plots had been provided identifying the extent of coverage with the existing college antennas removed.

§         This additional information addressed the concerns detailed in the report and the recommendation was amended accordingly.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Godfrey spoke in objection to the application.

In response to comments made by the public speaker, the Development Control Manager queried the potential impact of the monopole on nearby businesses, advised that deferral for a site inspection would take the application beyond the expiry date after which approval would granted automatically, that refusal based on health and safety reasons would not be defendable on appeal as the application met the necessary standards, and the principal issue remaining was the appearance of the development.

Councillor D.B. Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, noted the difficulties in siting such equipment, asked for clarification about possible interference with other electrical equipment, and questioned whether several smaller monopoles would be better than a single, larger mast.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that no evidence had been provided to suggest that the monopole would cause interference with the operation of computerised car management systems.  He added that there was an existing monopole within close proximity and there were no known problems arising from it.  He also advised that the Hospital was likely to have more sensitive equipment than the nearby businesses but it had not raised any objections to the application.  The Development Control Manager commented on other examples of monopoles being used in close proximity to other electrical equipment without any evidence of interference.

Councillor R.M. Wilson questioned whether the monopole could be a potential hazard for the Air Ambulance.  In response, the Development Control Manager advised that there were other examples of masts being used in much closer proximity to hospitals than this proposal.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Hospital Estate Manager had not raised any objections but further clarification could be requested from the applicant on the specific technical issues if considered necessary.

Councillor R.I. Matthews commented that many people in the scientific community had reservations about the use of such masts and felt that they should be sited as far away from residential dwellings as possible.

Councillor P.J. Edwards commented on an example in his Ward where residents had to pay for the costs to mitigate radio interference problems themselves and asked that, if planning permission was granted and interference did arise, the applicant be required to cover the costs of any measures to protect local businesses.

Councillor Ms. A.M. Toon questioned whether operators were meeting the requirements of PPG8, particularly in relation to the roll out of services in the east of the city and in terms of mast sharing.  She felt that mast sharing, albeit with a greater height, was preferable.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the removal of masts from the Herefordshire College of Technology would leave a significant gap in coverage and that operators had to find suitable locations for the necessary equipment elsewhere.  He advised that some eighteen sites had been dismissed already and that this site was considered to be acceptable in planning terms.

A number of Members felt that the visual impact of this proposal was unsatisfactory and that a mast share may be more appropriate in this instance.  The Development Control Manager re-iterated that Officers considered that the visual impact on the urban fabric of the locality would be reduced through the use of monopoles rather than larger shared masts.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that a number of operators were looking to retain and improve network capacity in the area and that the height of a shared mast could be in excess of 25m.

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 applications to the Planning Committee:

1. The proposed siting would result in the proliferation of masts in the locality and the appearance of the mast in this location would be particularly conspicuous.  The proposed installation would thereby be to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area and contrary to Policies S2, DR1, CF3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and advice contained within PPG8.

(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 this application, the Development Control Manager advised that, although the resolution was contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, he was not minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning Services given the grounds for refusal put forward by the Sub-Committee.]