Agenda item

Installation of a 17.5m slimline telecommunications column with 3 no. antennas within shroud, 2 no. 300mm dishes, with installation of 1 no. equipment cabinet and 1 no. meter cabinet and ancillary works within a secure fenced compound.

Public Participation

John Kenny spoke in objection to the application

John Kent spoke in objection to the application

Ben Kelly spoke in objection to the application

Paul Street spoke in support of the application

Cllr John Blocksidge representing Redlynch PC spoke in objection

 

The Planning Team Leader Adam Madge introduced the report detailing the application for the installation of a 17.5m slimline telecommunications column with 3 no. antennas within shroud, 2 no. 300mm dishes, with installation of 1 no. equipment cabinet and 1 no. meter cabinet and ancillary works within a secure fenced compound, which was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Attention was drawn to late correspondence circulated at the meeting.

 

There was already consent for another mast approximately 2m away from the site of the proposed slimline mast, up for consideration today. The one already permitted was of a different style, with a thicker pole, and more columns around the top.

 

Some trees had been removed on the site since the photos were taken. There were still some trees, but less than shown in the photos.

 

The nearest property would have two windows facing the mast.

 

The reason for a new mast was that one had to be taken down in another area, due to redevelopment of the site it was currently on. That was a 2G mast 12m high. The new mast would have 4G capability and was 17.5m high.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions, where it was clarified that if planning permission was granted today, then the slimline mast would be built, however if it were refused then the applicants could go ahead and build a mast 2m from this position.

 

With regards to the removal of the trees, the Officer confirmed that it was not considered detrimental to the amenity to a degree that he would refuse the application.

 

The list of sites detailed in the report which were assessed by Vodafone, were accepted as satisfactory by the Officer.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as

detailed above.

 

Key points raised included that the trees had been completely removed, not partially.

 

The Parish representative noted that previous correspondence from 2014 detailed Redlynch playing field as a possible site, if agreement with landowners could be reached. The mast suggested for that site was 20m high.

 

The Division Member, Cllr Leo Randall then spoke in objection to the application, noting that when the previous application first got approval, there was an error on behalf of the PC, and when they started construction some six months later, that was the first time the locals found out it had approval. In that six months they could have been trying to find a better site but nobody knew about it so this was not done.

 

The Code of best practice for mobile network details public consultation. Specifies that consultation, when local concern, and media interest then there should be significant public consultation on the application.

 

There should have been site notices and informal drop-ins with leaflets in the local press, all prior to the submission of the planning application. None of that happened. The local authority should be advising the applicant to do all of this, but we are not sure if that happened or not?

 

I spoke to Mike Wilmot, the Head of Planning and he said there was further information which had been provided to them, however they have had problems getting these documents uploaded to the website. A resident then contacted Cllr Jane Scott, who then extended the response time by 6 days. We were not told. The process has fallen down.

 

There was a poor mobile signal in Lover and Redlynch. The new position of the mast was the other side of the hill, there will be a worse signal for those villages. To be effective the mast would need to be somewhere along the ridgeline of the hill.

 

Cllr Matthew Dean noted that he was astonished that they find themselves in a position with a deemed consent in place. He was disappointed with the lack of authority of the Planning team and the agent company’s actions.

 

While mobile phone coverage was important, the infrastructure supporting that coverage needed to be acceptable. He did not feel that the application was acceptable and the proposed mast would be visible and oppressive and there would be a loss of amenity to villages and local people. He felt that a 17.5m antenna would be of detriment to the village itself.

 

Cllr Matthew Dean moved the motion of refusal on grounds of loss of visual amenity, and contrary to Core Policies 47, 51, & 58. This was seconded by Cllr Ian McLennan.

 

A debate then followed, where the key issues raised included that an application could not be refused because of its history, what had gone before was irrelevant.

 

The refusal of this application would not necessarily lead to Vodafone starting the process again in the correct manner, and the deemed site would remain.

 

There had been a lack of communication with the village.

 

The 56 days that had elapsed, without correct procedure and the Planning Team not doing their bit properly, should have been detailed in a report for Committee to consider.

 

The New Forest National Park Authority had no objection.

 

The situation was that there was consent for a mast at the site. The difference between the two sites was not a factor as 2m was not a huge amount. We cannot do anything to stop a mast from going there, all we can do is to decide if this one was better than the other one.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of Refusal against Officer’s recommendation. That motion was not carried.

 

Cllr Westmoreland then moved the motion of Approval in line with Officers recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Richard Britton.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of Approval.

 

Resolved

 

That application 18/00898/FUL be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

 

Drawing number 201 issue G dated 10.01.18, as deposited with the local planning authority on 26.01.18, and

Drawing number 301 issue F dated 10.01.18, as deposited with the local planning authority on 26.01.18, and

Drawing number 100 issue A dated 07.09.16, as deposited with the local planning authority on 26.01.18.

 

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

3. All equipment, apparatus and structure(s) hereby approved provided shall, when no longer reasonably required, be removed as soon as reasonably practicable from the land and the land restored to its condition before the development took place.

 

REASON: To ensure the removal of equipment, apparatus and structures and the restoration of the land when no longer reasonably required, in the interests of amenity.

 

4. Within three months of the bringing into use of the telecommunication apparatus hereby approved, the existing mast and apparatus at the Skylark Motors site in Woodfalls shall be decommissioned and removed from the site.

 

REASON: To prevent the proliferation of new telecommunication apparatus, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, as the justification for this new mast relies partly on the need to replace the mast at Skylar Motors.

 

5. Before the mast hereby is erected on the concrete slab, details of the external colour paint to be applied to it shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The mast shall be painted in the approved colour before being brought into use.

 

REASON: To protect the character and appearance of the area, by ensuring the mast is painted in a suitable colour.

 

Informative:

 

The section of hedge from the gateway to a point approximately 3 metres beyond the utility pole should be cut back level with the existing fence.  Once construction is complete this section of hedge should be maintained to this standard to ensure that the right of way is not obstructed.

 

The Committee also requested

 

1.       For the Case Officer write to Vodafone to inform them that it was unhappy with the position it had been put in, to approve one of the masts, and for them to consider putting the mast elsewhere.  

2.    A report to be sent to Members outlining why the first original application got permission, and what has been done to make sure this sort of mistake did not happen again.