Agenda item

Mrs Walton addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/11/0356/PT, prior approval be granted subject to the conditions now detailed.

The Director advised that Officers had received 158 representations on this application and Officers had summarised the comments in the additional representations schedule.  Members were advised that Hertfordshire Highways had not objected to the application.

Councillor G McAndrew, as the local ward Member, referred to paragraph 1.3 of the report now submitted in that the proposed installation was actually 30 metres from the public space containing a children’s play area.  He commented that a majority of the users of the playground were children aged 2 – 5 years old.

Councillor McAndrew referred Members to paragraph 1.6 in that this application was for a new column, so that Vodafone and O2 would occupy two separate structures in the area.  He stressed that the reasons for refusal under application 3/10/0326/PT were all still relevant and all the reasons for rejected permissions in paragraphs 2.2 - 2.5 were also still relevant for this application.

Councillor G McAndrew expressed concerns that this application was before Members for a decision whilst the consultation process was still ongoing.  He stated his strong concern that Development Control and other committee meetings were not being held during Purdah.

Councillor McAndrew was particularly concerned that a decision could be reached on this application without the usual timescales for consultation and scrutiny.  He referred to paragraph 3.2 of the report and stressed that the Committee must give very clear and concise direction to the Chairman and the Director prior to the issue of the decision.

Councillor McAndrew stated that it was often unclear what consultation process had been followed in selecting sites for telecommunication masts.  He stressed that it was unclear which sites had been ruled in or ruled out by the applicant.

Councillor McAndrew commented on whether the cumulative impact of two masts complied with the national guidelines on the potential health risks in respect of emissions.  He stated that the application should be refused on the grounds of the perceived health risk and for all the reasons detailed in paragraphs 2.2 to 2.5 in relation to previously refused applications.

The Director confirmed that the International Commission on Non-Ironising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines did take into account the cumulative impact of any other masts in close proximity to a proposed site.

Councillor R Gilbert expressed his frustration that the phone companies often took no notice of the public’s views when selecting locations for telecommunication masts.  He stated his concern that this new mast was to be located in close proximity to an existing mast.  He commented that mobile phone operators were not fully examining the opportunities for sharing masts.

Councillor Gilbert stressed that previous applications had been refused on health grounds even though this was not a valid planning reason.  He failed to see how Members could refuse the application.  In response to a query from Councillor M R Alexander, the Director confirmed that no representation had been received from Bishop’s Stortford Town Council.

Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink acknowledged the difficult position the Committee was in.  She referred to the precautionary approach taken by Members in refusing the previous application with very sensible reasons for refusal, only to have the decisions overturned on appeal.  She agreed with Councillor McAndrew that all the previous reasons for refusal were still valid.

Councillor Goldspink commented on whether the Committee could still refuse the application on the grounds of precautionary health principles.  The Chairman stated that Members should be cautious as the applicant had complied with all the ICNIRP guidelines when submitting this application.

Councillor Goldspink commented on whether Members could refuse the application on the grounds of visual amenity concerns given that there would now be two masts and two separate sets of street furniture.

Councillor J Demonti commented that Bishop’s Stortford Town Council would be debating the application on Monday evening.  Councillor Alexander queried whether there were any other locations in the District where two masts were located in such close proximity to each other.

The Director stressed that the issue of visual impact was a matter of judgement for Members.  Members were advised that Officers considered this to be a weak argument in light of the appeal inspectors report on an adjacent site.

Councillor A L Burlton commented on whether the applicant had stated why this mast was necessary in this location.  Councillor McAndrew queried whether the Committee could refuse the application on section 237a of the Town and Country Planning Act and policy GBC8 of the Local Plan on the grounds that insufficient evidence had been submitted in relation to coverage in the area and the shared operation of masts.

Councillor McAndrew referred to unsuitable siting and design as another possible reason for refusal, as well as the proposed development being visually intrusive and detrimental to the area.

The Director referred to policy GBC8 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, and informed the Committee that the applicant had submitted evidence detailing the need for the telecommunications mast.  Officers had been provided with details of alternative sites that had been justifiably discounted by the applicant.

The Director urged Members to carefully consider the comments of the appeal inspector in relation to the siting and design issues as well as the issue of clutter. 

Members were advised to consider whether replacing a lamp post with a higher structure would genuinely create clutter on the roundabout.

The Director stressed that as Members had concerns on this application, very clear substantive reasons must be given should the Committee vote against the application.

The Committee was advised that mobile phone operations were in continuous demand, particularly with the introduction of 3G and 4G services.  The Government had always been supportive of such development and this remained the reason why this scheme had been classed as permitted development.

The Committee was reminded that applicants for telecommunication masts did not have to justify the need for the proposals in principle, in much the same way as most applicants did not have to provide such justification.

Councillor Goldspink sought clarification as to whether Members could reasonably refuse the application on the grounds that the scheme would create clutter that was detrimental to the visually amenity of the area. 

The Director advised caution in that the Committee could very well be judged to be acting unreasonably in light of the previous appeal decision.

Councillor R N Copping commented on whether the views of Bishop’s Stortford Town Council would be taken into consideration following the meeting that was due to take place next week.

The Director stressed that the Authority must determine the application within 8 weeks of submission and if further representations were made, these would be considered by the Director in consultation with the Chairman prior to any decision being issued.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services that application 3/11/0356/PT be granted prior approval subject to the conditions now detailed.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/11/0356/PT, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.            Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the colour of the installations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details.

        Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development, and in accordance with policy ENV28 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

2.            Within 2 months of the erection of the telecommunications pole hereby permitted, the existing lamppost No. 612 shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its previous undeveloped condition to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

        Reason: To avoid unnecessary clutter in the interests of the appearance and character of the site, having regard to national guidance in PPG8 and in accordance with policy ENV28 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

Directives:

1.            Other legislation (01OL)

2.            Highway Works (05FC)