15m high replacement telecommunications / lamppost mono pole with antenna shroud and 2 small cabinets with lighting arm on tip flexicell outside Tesco's.

15m high replacement telecommunications / lamppost mono pole with antenna shroud and 2 small cabinets with lighting arm on tip flexicell outside Tesco's.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the applicant had confirmed that it would be technically possible to move the proposed cabinets to ensure that there was no obstruction to the public highway when the cabinet doors were opened for maintenance.

Councillor P.J. Edwards, a Local Member, proposed that the application be refused on highways safety and detrimental impact on landscaping grounds.  Councillor Edwards noted that this area had once been a pleasant corridor to the City but supermarket development and associated street clutter had made a significant impact on the area.  He felt that the pole and associated paraphernalia would have a further detrimental impact on the characteristics of the area.  He noted that there were three other telecommunications poles in the vicinity already and felt that an additional pole was unacceptable.

Councillor Ms. G.A. Powell, a Local Member, supported Councillor Edwards’ views and noted the strong objections of Belmont Parish Council.

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer reminded the Sub-Committee that this proposal was a replacement of an existing structure and it was considered that it would sit well within the existing street furniture.

A number of Members were concerned that the opportunities for mast sharing might not have been fully explored and the willingness of operators to pursue this option was questioned.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that a substantial lattice mast of some 25-30 metres would be required to accommodate the equipment on a shared mast and that Officers felt that mono poles were a less conspicuous solution.

Some Members noted the fears about potential health issues associated with telecommunications equipment but also noted the most recent government advice on the matter. 

Some Members commented that the demand from consumers for more choice, better signal reception and services was driving the telecommunications market.  The Principal Planning Officer added that the third-generation of the mobile telecommunications/data market relied on smaller network cells which meant that more masts were required to ensure sufficient network coverage.

Councillor Edwards clarified that his concerns about highway safety related in particular to the visual hindrance that the equipment would cause at the entrance/exit to the Tesco car park.

RESOLVED:

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.

§               Highways safety

§               Detrimental impact on landscaping

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 item, the Central Team Leader advised that the timescales associated with telecommunications equipment meant that there would be no time to refer the application to the Planning Committee before consent would be given by default.  Therefore, the application would not be referred to the Head of Planning Services.]