Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/14/00593/TEL Tel. No: (01246) 345786 Plot No: 2/749 Ctte Date: 6 th October 2014 ITEM 1 UPGRADE OF EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION BASE STATION COMPRISING THE REPLACEMENT WITH MINOR RELOCATION OF A 13.8M HIGH COLUMN WITH A 15.0 HIGH COLUMN (HEIGHT INCLUDING ANTENNA SHROUD), ASSOCIATED ANTENNAS, 3 NO ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT CABINETS (1 NO EXISTING CABINET TO BE REMOVED) AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT AT HIGHWAY VERGE AT JUNCTION OF ST AUGUSTINES ROAD AND HAREHILL ROAD, CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE FOR TELEFONICA UK LTD. Ward: Rother 1.0 CONSULTATIONS DCC Highways Ward Members Neighbours/Site Notice Comments rec d no objections Comment rec d from Cllr Flood No letter of representation received 2.0 THE SITE 2.1 The site the subject of the application comprises an existing tarmac footpath and verge which runs around the corner of the St Augustine s Road and Harehill Road junction. The existing telecommunications installation sits between the existing telephone box and the street name sign. There is a grassed verge to the rear of the site with a footpath which leads down to the flats on Melling Close. 2.2 This area is dominated by the road junction and roundabout serving the four roads which converge at this point. The predominant character of the use of the immediate surrounding area is residential. 1
3.0 SITE HISTORY 3.1 CHE/11/00034/TEL - Proposed CU PHOSCO 13.8m high mk 3 street pole painted grey, proposed harrier equipment cabinet - resubmission of CHE/10/00605/TEL. Prior approval refused by the LPA on 04/04/2011 against the officer recommendation but subsequently granted on appeal on 10/10/2011 (Appeal Ref APP/A1015/A/11/2155051). 3.2 CHE/10/00605/TEL - Proposed Vodafone/O2-13.8m high telecommunications pole. Application withdrawn on 19/11/2010. 4.0 THE PROPOSAL 4.1 The application as submitted seeks prior approval for an upgrade to the existing telecommunications installation comprising: the replacement of the 13.8m mast with a new 15m high mast (height includes 3 no. antenna shroud) and its relocation 4.4m south; the positioning of 3 no. equipment cabinets (1 no. cabinet to be removed) on the footway (around the corner) fronting St Augustine s Road; and ancillary verge / footway works. 4.2 The proposed monopole diameter has not been supplied other than on scale plans. The monopole diameter measures on the plans at around 350mm and the antennae section on the top of the monopole would have a maximum diameter of around 550mm. This compares with the existing mast which has a monopole of 230mm diameter together with a 500mm diameter top section. The top section is however reduced from 4.5 metres to 3.4 metres. 4.3 The external colour of the proposed mast is indicted on the accompanying form to be a Grey finish. The external colour of the proposed cabinets will be Dark Green RAL 6003. The mast and cabinets are to be sited at the back of the footway as existing with the mast positioned on Harehill Road and the cabinets on St Augustine s Road. 2
4.4 The equipment cabinets are permitted development under Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001, not requiring prior approval. Therefore these elements of the development should not be considered further by the Local Planning Authority; consequently the development under consideration consists of the mast, antennae and shroud only. 5.0 PROCEEDURE 5.1 This application is made under Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001. The information submitted is considered to meet the requirements of the aforementioned development order. 5.2 The application made is not for planning permission, purely for a decision by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) as to whether prior approval is necessary for the siting and appearance of the monopole, and if so whether it is given or withheld. 5.3 The LPA has already determined under its delegated powers that prior approval for the mast, antennae and shroud siting and appearance is required (letter dated 29 th August 2014). Consequently the decision is whether or not the approval of the LPA is to be given. 5.4 The decision of the LPA must be given within 56 days of the receipt of the application. There is no power to extend the 56 day period. If no decision is made, or the LPA fails to notify the developer of its decision within the 56 days, permission is deemed to have been granted by the relevant development order. 5.5 The current application was received by the LPA on the 14 th August 2014; the 56 day period in which the LPA must make a decision and notify the applicant expires on the 8 th October 2014. The LPA must take into account any representations made to them as a result of consultation. 3
6.0 CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Policy Framework / Development Plan 6.1.1 The relevant development plan for the area is the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 2031 however the policies of that document are only relevant in so much as they relate to matters of siting and appearance. 6.1.2 The Local Plan policies relevant to the decision are: CS1 (Spatial Strategy) CS2 (Principles for Location of Development) CS3 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) CS18 (Design) 6.1.3 The National policies considered relevant to the decision are: Chapter 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 6.1.4 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) relevant to the decision are: None. 6.1.5 Other documents of relevance; Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development (CLG 2002). Mobile Phone Base Stations and Health (Department of Health 2005). International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): Exposure to High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Biological Effects and Health Consequences (100Khz 300Ghz) (2009). Report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones: Stewart Report (April 2000). National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) Report R321: Exposure to Radio Waves near Mobile Phone Base Stations (June 2000). 4
6.2 Key Issues / Assessment 6.2.1 Principle of Development 6.2.1.1 The principle of the development is established by Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001. 6.2.1.2 Para. 45 of the NPPF sets out that applications for telecommunications (including prior approval) should be supported by the following evidence to justify the proposed development: The outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposal (in particular nearby schools, colleges or aerodrome / technical site); and For an addition to an existing mast / base station a statement that self certifies that the cumulative exposure will not exceed International Commission on non-ionising radiation protection guidelines; or For a new mast / base station evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennae on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self certifies that when operational International Commission guidelines will be met. 6.2.1.3 In accordance with the guidelines of the NPPF above a copy of the applicants consultation email dated 25 th July 2014 which was sent to local ward members and the area assembly accompanies the application. The supplementary information package states a response was received from Cllr Flood concerning the possibility the cabinets could cause a visual obstruction and attention was drawn to the local historic interest of the adjacent wall, requesting that no works should be undertaken to affect the wall. These issues are address in section 6.2.2 of the report below. 6.2.1.4 In addition having regard to the site selection criteria of para. 45 the applicant is looking to upgrade their existing installation and therefore there is no requirement for the applicant to explore alternative sites. Furthermore the application is supported by an ICNIRP declaration dated 8 th August 2014 stating the installation 5
will not exceed International Commission on non-ionising radiation protection guidelines. 6.2.1.5 The applicant incorrectly states in their supplementary information package that policy EVR19 of the 2006 Local Plan is applicable; however this policy was not saved following the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2013. Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy and Chapter 5 of the NPPF set the policy framework against which the development principle should be considered. Having regard to this framework it is considered, given the evidence supporting the application outlined above, that the principle of development is acceptable. 6.2.2 Siting & Appearance 6.2.2.1 The application site is in a location where street furniture such as lighting columns, telegraph poles, highway signs and the existing telecommunications installation are clearly evident. The street lighting columns are relatively low (between 5m 8m in height) in comparison to the existing installation which is 13.8m high. As can be seen from the site photograph below the existing mast sits relatively prominent in the immediate streetscene. 6.2.2.2 The proposed siting and appearance of the new mast, antennae and shroud would be consistent with the positioning of existing installation in between the telecom cabinet and the phone box, therefore given the relatively insignificant increase in height at 1.2m and a slightly bigger diameter pole but less significant shroud, it is unlikely the physical impact of a new 15.0m high mast will appear materially different and harmful to the visual impact already accepted from the existing 13.8m high mast in place. 6
Whilst it is noted there will inevitably be some additional streetscene clutter created by the proliferation of 3 no. new surface level cabinets these structures are permitted development. 6.2.2.3 It is noted that the application form accompanying the submission details that the replacement mast and new equipment housing will be finished grey / green respectively to match the existing installation, which is considered to be necessary to ensure the installation continues to conform with the adopted street furniture colour (Derbyshire Green) that is applied by DCC Highways. It is noted that the cabinets proposed will obscure the stone boundary wall which runs along St Augustine s Road, however given that these cabinets are permitted development the visual impact of these elements of the proposal cannot be considered as part of this prior approval application. 6.2.3 Public Health & Fear 6.2.3.1 Proposals such as that applied for, especially where in close proximity to dwellings, can lead to public concerns at the potential for adverse health impacts from the emissions generated by the telecommunications antennae. 6.2.3.2 Guidance in para. 45 and 46 of the NPPF set out the required evidence to justify the proposed development and state that LPAs must determine applications on planning grounds. The NPPF further indicates that they should not seek to question the need for the telecommunications system; or determine health safeguards if the proposal meets International Commission guidelines for public exposure. 6.2.3.3 It remains central Governments responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Governments view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for the LPA, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them. 7
6.2.3.4 In considering the public health implications of the proposal, it is considered that the Government and Health Protection Agency are the appropriate bodies for setting guidelines and controls to protect the public, and that significant weight is given to the NPPF and the current approach taken by Government on the matter. In this respect the applicants have certified ICNIRP Guideline compliance for the proposed installation. Furthermore, given the recent ICNIRP studies conclusions it would appear that there is no reliable evidence to date that exposure to the electro-magnetic radiation associated with mobile phones and similar technologies can lead to a significant health risk and therefore insufficient reason to deviate from the Governments guidance. 6.2.3.5 Consequently it is considered that a refusal on grounds of there being a material threat to public health could not be sustained at appeal. Notwithstanding this however, it is likely to be impossible to prove scientifically that no risk exists, and speculation can give rise to a level of public fear which is a material consideration. 6.2.3.6 No objections on grounds of fear have been received to date and it would therefore appear that there are insufficient levels of public concern expressed to outweigh the Government s guidance in the NPPF and to sustain a refusal on grounds of public fear and an adverse effect on amenity as a consequence of this. 7.0 REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Site notice posted on 20/08/2014. Twenty three neighbours notified on 19/08/2014 however no letters of representation have been received. 7.2 Councillor Flood has however made comments expressing concerns about the application. Residents asked for more information about the proposals and after talking to the planning department I sent an email citing our concerns and questions, in particular about the siting of the 3 cabinets and issues relating to visual occlusion of traffic coming up St Augustine's Road causing a problem for pedestrians and drivers alike at the junction. This is a very busy and dangerous junction due to the volume of traffic and the hill just before the mini roundabout, along with the number of children crossing on their way to and from Whitecotes School and Parkside school. Also mentioned that we did not want the old Manor Farm wall to suffer 8
any effects from this work. If you have any improved information for me to share with the local residents I would be grateful for a copy as they are elderly and not easily able to get in to see the plans. I can pop to see them if they are any better when I am next in the town Hall. However if these issues have not be properly considered and addressed in their application then I will be objecting. Comments The concerns regarding the equipment cabinets are noted however this element of the proposal is permitted development and the Council as local planning authority has no control over it. The wall in front of which the cabinets are proposed does not sit in front of the listed Stud Farm Cottages further to the east and in any event there is unlikely to be any damage to it arising from the proposal. The proposed cabinets are set some 8 metres away from the junction kerb line and their position will not affect visibility for any highway user. The Highway Authority accordingly raises no objection to the proposals. 8.0 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 8.1 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2 nd October 2000, an authority must be in a position to show: Its action is in accordance with clearly established law The objective is sufficiently important to justify the action taken The decisions taken are objective and not irrational or arbitrary The methods used are no more than are necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective The interference impairs as little as possible the right or freedom 8.2 It is considered that the recommendation is objective and in accordance with clearly established law. 8.3 The recommended conditions are considered to be no more than necessary to control details of the development in the interests of amenity and public safety and which interfere as little as possible with the rights of the applicant. 9
8.4 Whilst, in the opinion of the objector, the development affects their amenity and possible highway safety, it is not considered that this is harmful in planning terms, such that any additional control to satisfy those concerns would go beyond that necessary to accomplish satisfactory planning control. 9.0 STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE WORKING WITH APPLICANT 9.1 The following is a statement on how the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has adhered to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 in respect of decision making in line with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 9.2 Given that the proposed development does not conflict with the NPPF or with up-to-date Development Plan policies, it is considered to be sustainable development and there is a presumption on the LPA to seek to approve the application. The LPA has used conditions where necessary to deal with outstanding issues with the development and has been sufficiently proactive and positive in proportion to the nature and scale of the development applied for. 9.3 The applicant / agent and any objector will be provided with copy of this report informing them of the application considerations and recommendation / conclusion. 10.0 CONCLUSION 10.1 The telecommunications operator has demonstrated that there is an operational need for the development and the proposals result in the replacement of an existing installation. The proposed siting and visual impact of the development is considered acceptable and as such, the proposal accords with the requirements of policy CS2 of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 2031 and Chapter 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 10
11.0 RECOMMENDATION 11.1 It is therefore recommended that Chesterfield Borough Council give approval for the siting and appearance of the development proposed in the manner described in the above mentioned application and shown on the accompanying plan(s) and drawing(s): 11