Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Service Lead City Development.

 

 

The Assistant Service Lead City Development presented the application for prior approval for the installation of a 15 metre high 5G telecommunication monopole with cabinet at base and associated ancillary works. He explained the following different types of telecommunication developments:-

 

·         permitted development, for example, alterations to an existing mast;

·         permitted development - prior approval notification, for example, a new mast up to 20 metres; and

·         planning application, for example, a new mast over 20 metres; and

 

set out the following relevant statutory requirements:-

 

For all Telecommunication developments:-

 

·         National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 116: and

·         Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection guidelines for public exposure.

 

Prior Approval Notifications:-

 

·         General Permitted Development Order Part 16: The developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the siting and appearance of the development; and

·         56 days from receipt to determine and to approve/refuse siting and design.

 

The Assistant Service Lead City Development set out the following factors which can be considered in relation to appearance as part of the prior approval process including:-

 

·         design, form, shape and dimensions;

·         colour and materials; and

·         whether there are more suitable sites for the proposed works; and

 

also set out the factors which can be considered concerning siting including:-

 

·         height of the site in relation to surrounding ground;

·         existing topographical features and natural vegetation;

·         the effect on the skyline or horizon;

·         the site when observed from any side;

·         the site in relation to areas designated for scenic value;

·         the site in relation to existing masts;

·         the site in relation to residential properties

 

The Assistant Service Lead City Development, through a series of photo montages provided by the applicant, showed from a range of views the location and potential visual impact the mast would have on the street scene within the Cowick Street Conservation Area. He advised that a number of sites in St. Thomas had been considered but rejected for technical reasons and the current site proposed was the only suitable one to achieve the necessary cell radius. Due to operational reasons the mast needed to be located in the St. Thomas area and a location outside of the city was unlikely to provide sufficient coverage. The proposal was required due to acute capacity issues and would facilitate significantly improved 5G coverage in areas that had started to gain this service.

 

The Assistant Service Lead City Development advised that 12 representations in support had been received, seven from St. Thomas, one from Torquay and four from elsewhere. 342 objections had been received, 50 from St. Thomas. It was noted that, in the interests of highway safety, the site of the mast has been moved away from the bus shelter and pavement.

 

The Assistant Service Lead City Development responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·         the photo montage was the one sent to English Heritage and was considered sufficiently accurate to assess the impact on the view of the Cathedral and other historical assets;

·         the view of the Cathedral from the photo montage and including the mast showed that the view of the Cathedral was partly obscured by trees;

·         the applicant had advised that the mast would provide the necessary coverage and that they would not seek additional masts in the area;

·         as the Government had set permitted development at 20 metres, providers would seek to apply for this height in the first instance;

·         other sites considered in the vicinity would not have met the guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection including a suggested location which would have brought the top of the mast to be in line with passengers waiting on the St. Thomas Rail Halt. The current location would meet the guidelines;

·         the mast is unlikely to have an adverse impact on wildlife; and

·         not aware of any Tree Preservation Orders in the Cowick Street Conservation Area.

 

Councillor Packham, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. She raised the following points:-

 

·         serious concerns amongst the residents of St. Thomas relating to scale, design and siting of the mast which is out of place within this community setting;

·         the mast will dominate the skyline, is an eyesore and will impact adversely on the St. Thomas precinct which is the heart of the local community;

·         concerns have also been expressed regarding the impact on the general landscaping and biodiversity of the area. Devon Wildlife Trust have confirmed the presence of Pied Wagtails which are in long term decline;

·         applicant had only considered three alternatives which failed to meet the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection;

·         location is too close to residential properties and there have been numerous concerns about potential health implications; and

·         more than 50 St. Thomas residents are deeply opposed to the mast on grounds of scale, design, siting and bio-diversity.

 

Councillor D. Moore, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. She raised the following points:-

 

·         the mast will have a detrimental effect not only on listed buildings but the Cowick Street Conservation Area as a whole as well as other Conservation Areas such as Central, the Riverside and St. Davids;

·         long distance views from the centre of the city looking out towards the hills beyond St. Thomas will also be affected;

·         as St. Thomas is at a lower level, the mast will have a detrimental effect on views up to the centre of the city and of the Cathedral;

·         theCowick Street Area Conservation Management Plan states that the post war period after 1945 saw a collection of inappropriate re-development in this part of St. Thomas, fragmenting the townscape and detracting from the special character of the area. The mast and associated cabinets will further detract from the area and its amenity;

·         the proposed mast and cabinets will have a poor relationship with the character of the street scene and undermine the Council’s efforts to improve the street scene in line with the Conservation Area Management Plan;

·         absence of an ecological study into the impact on wildlife; and

·         if prior approval is granted, any future proposal for a 20 metres high mast must be refused.

 

Councillor Newby, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points:-

 

·         mast will be located in the vicinity of a number of schools including the Little Saints Pre-School and St. Thomas and Bowhill Primary Schools and there is no guarantee that the mast will meet the requisite standards for telecommunication masts;

·         potential disruption to the radio waves of emergency services;

·         other providers may seek to add their equipment to the mast; and

·         adverse impact on bio-diversity of the area with particular reference to bee hives and the pied wagtail.

 

Councillor J. Moore, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the item. She raised the following points:-

 

·         wider issues including potential impact on health are also relevant;

·         Historic England were misled about the scale of the mast and have suggested that alternative locations should be examined;

·         the mast is significantly taller than trees and nearby street lamps and wider at the top than the street lamps and adds to the clutter of the street creating a hard industrial feel to the area;

·         photos are misleading with some images not showing the mast in an accurate position and do not show the correct scale and height in some views with a distorted wide angle perspective. Revised photos are required;

·         adverse impact on the view of the Cathedral; and

·         prior approval should be rejected on grounds of siting and appearance.

 

Mr Charlie Kay spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

 

·         hands tied as only able to reject on the grounds of appearance and siting;

·         5G is a toxic pollutant and untested technology, studies showing that it causes biological harm and is a carcinogen impacting immune systems and wildlife;

·         being 15 meters high, ugly and an extremely prominent piece of industrial infrastructure dominating the skyline it is not a normal mast;

·         the applicant’s photos are inaccurate and not properly assessed;

·         it impacts the view of the Cathedral and Conservation Area generally from various angles;

·         viewed against the existing horizon and skyline, it totally dominates the surrounding community of St. Thomas, including its amenities, businesses and residential properties;

·         it is intrusive and overbearing, completely out of scale and three times taller than houses and ground level shops and to live, shop and spend recreational time close to the mast would seriously affect the whole ambiance of the area;

·         allowing the application would set a dangerous precedent for other Conservation Areas in a beautiful historic city;

·         it will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in breach of Exeter City Council's Local Plan;

·         contrary to the applicant’s proposal, the siting is in close proximity to St. Thomas Primary School, two other primary schools, two pre-schools and a nursery; and

·         the siting, design and appearance is therefore completely inappropriate for St. Thomas and the Conservation area.

 

Before the commencement of the debate the Deputy Chair reminded Members that the application was a prior notification in respect of siting and appearance and was not a planning application and that the principal of the development was permitted by national government regulations.  Moreover, as prior approval application required an applicant to seek approval from the Local Planning Authority (LPA) only certain elements of the proposal were acceptable before commencement of work and the LPA could not consider any other matters.

 

The Deputy Chair further emphasised that the mobile operators did not need to justify the need for the apparatus. National planning policy stated that health implications associated with new telecoms could not be considered. The Council could not therefore consider perception of health risk, or the precautionary principal as the application considerations related to siting and appearance only. The considerations to be taken into account in the determination of prior approval applications were therefore very limited under planning regulations.

 

The application had to be determined by the Council within 56 days of receipt and the operator had the right to install the apparatus if there was no response within this timescale.

 

A number of Members opposed the granting of prior approval on the following grounds:-

 

·         the insertion of an alien structure will detract from the Cowick Street Conservation Area and negate the efforts of the Council and the local community to improve the area;

·         Historic England have reservations and questioned whether the applicant had seriously examined alternative locations. Alternative sites should be explored;

·         a number of trees have been removed in the area and the mast will further detract from the overall landscaping;

·         Section 40 of the Natural England and Rural Communities Act 2009 sets out a duty to conserve the biodiversity of areas. The presence of a mast is likely to have an adverse impact on wildlife;

·         as providers have stated that mast coverage has a greater impact at ground level for mobile phones, a height of 15 metres is unnecessary;

·         the mast will have an adverse impact on the unique character of St. Thomas;

·         the scale and massing is inappropriate and will dwarf adjacent shops and residential properties and the example of other authorities such as Norwich, Bath, Brighton and Hammersmith and Fulham Councils, who have rejected such applications, should be followed;

·         the mast will detract from the view of the Cathedral and also panoramic views in the opposite direction, west to Dartmoor; and

·         the mast neither preserves nor enhances the Cowick Street Conservation Area.

 

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the condition as set out in the report.

 

The following motion was moved, seconded and carried.

 

“That the application be refused on the grounds that the mast was not appropriate in a Conservation Area on the basis of its design, location, form and height and was not in keeping with the current topographical features in the immediate vicinity and would neither enhance nor protect the area”

 

RESOLVED that prior approval for the installation of a 15 metre high 5G telecommunication monopole with cabinet at base and associated ancillary works be REFUSED as the proposal is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 127 and 192, policy CP17 of the Core Strategy, policies C1, C2, DG1 and EN7 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011, and policies DD6, DD25 and DD28 of the emerging Development Delivery Development Plan Document because the proposed telecommunications equipment by reason of its height, siting and design would be unacceptably prominent and visually intrusive, to the detriment of visual amenity, street scene and character of the Cowick Street Conservation Area.