Agenda item

The Planning Team Leader:

 

a.    advised that the purpose of the application was to determine whether prior approval was required for the installation of a 15m high slim-line monopole, supporting 5 no. antennas, 2 no. equipment cabinets, 1 no. electric meter cabinet and ancillary development including 1 no. GPS module on Boultham Park Road

 

b.    described the location of the site on the east side of Boultham Park Road, to the north of the roundabout, sat within the public highway, adjacent to the brick boundary wall of the Co-op Parklands food store and Post Office

 

c.    highlighted that the north/east and south of this section of Boultham Park Road was characterised by commercial premises, some containing residential flats above,

 

d.    added that Home Grange three storey apartment was located behind the Co-op store with vehicular access taken adjacent to the stores, together with a bus stop directly opposite the site to the north-west with St Peter and Paul Catholic Church beyond

 

e.    stated that the wider area was characterised by predominately two storey properties

 

f.     reported that the application was submitted under Part 16 of Schedule 2 (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (no.2) Order 2016, which set out the permitted development right to install masts of up to 25m above ground level on highway land

 

g.    clarified that the ground-based apparatus with associated cabinets at the bottom of the monopole was permitted development; however, prior approval was required for the monopole in terms of its siting and appearance

 

h.    advised that  a declaration had been submitted with the application which confirmed that the equipment was in line with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Public Exposure Guidelines (ICNIRP)

 

i.      reported that the application was brought before Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Bob Bushell

 

j.      provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

 

·         Policy LP26: Design and Amenity

·         National Planning Policy Framework      

 

11. advised Planning Committee that the only issue to be considered by the Local Planning Authority in determining this prior approval application was the siting and appearance of the proposed telecommunications equipment

 

12. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

13. referred to the Update sheet which included further representations received in respect of the planning application

 

14. concluded that the siting and design of the telecom’s equipment was acceptable, and the proposal would not have an unduly harmful visual impact on the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policy LP26 and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

John Wearing addressed Planning Committee on behalf of local residents with concerns regarding the planning application, covering the following main points:

 

·         He represented 44 residents of Home Grange Retirement complex to the rear of the Co-op store.

·         He wished to state that residents were not against the installation of wireless masts.

·         However, the siting and position of this mast on the public footpath next to a busy public road, close to a school, pedestrian crossing and church left much to be desired.

·         The mast and associated cabinets would take up a third of the public footpath width.

·         If the cabinets were opened for maintenance, the footpath width would be restricted by 60%, which was not wide enough for pushchairs and wheelchair/mobility scooter access.

·         The Zebra Crossing was to be upgraded to a Puffin Crossing due to safety concerns.

·         The applicants had stated they had considered ten sites in the area, but none in close proximity.

·         This location was the most inconvenient in the area.

·         There were four positions within 24-75 metres of the proposed site which would be reasonable settings i.e. the grassed area in front of the library, the parking area to the rear of the library, the grassed area between the library and Police House and the land between the Police House and Co-op store.

·         Home Grange, a 3 storey residential property had been totally overlooked in the planning submission.

·         A planning application for a similar mast at Fulmar Road had been refused.

·         He asked that the planning application be rejected in its current form.

 

Josh Fiteni addressed Planning Committee on behalf of the agent in favour of the proposed development, covering the following main points:

 

·         He spoke on behalf of Three UK, contracted to roll-out 5G network services to offer the latest technologies for residents and businesses in this area.

·         This was a mixed-use area however, more people were now working from home following on from the pandemic, agile working and technical improvements were therefore required.

·         The proposed mast effectively provided a 5G signal, at a minimum height for the area of 15 metres.

·         The mast complied with local and national policy requirements.

·         A choice of sensitive street furniture would be used to blend in with the local area.

·         There would be no loss of privacy or overlook to properties.

·         The only noise to be heard from the mast would originate from the cooling plant for the transmitters in hot weather, which was not an issue as road traffic noise was greater.

·         The mast could be accessed for maintenance from the Co-op car park.

·         The Highways Authority had raised no objections to the proposals.

·         There were no other viable and suitable locations.

·         Government and operator requirements had been observed.

·         The mast would supply next generation technology.

·         He hoped members would support this application and its benefits.

 

The Committee discussed the content of the report in further detail.

 

The following concerns were raised by members:

 

·         These masts were controversial in terms of appearance and had been rejected elsewhere in the City.

·         Siting in commercial locations would be acceptable.

·         It would be a shame to install this mast on the public pavement in such a pleasant area of the city.

·         The Grange development was impressive in a lovely community environment. The mast would restrict the width of the pavement in an area where wheelchair access was crucial to local needs. The views of Home Grange residents were important.

·         There were viable locations elsewhere and close by.

·         This application was submitted with commercial interest in mind only and did not take account of the lived-in environment.

·         It was correct we needed 4G/5G masts, however, the needs of the local community must be observed.

·         There were many alternative sites in the area for this 5G Mast. Further negotiation should be undertaken with relevant land owners to achieve this.

·         It was difficult for both applicants and planning officers to find suitable sites for this type of infrastructure.

·         Visual amenity was the main concern here

·         The footpath was quite large, however, the large cabinets would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and would be open to graffiti.

·         National Planning Policy Guidance advised that masts should be kept to a minimum, sympathetically designed to the character of the local surroundings and suitably camouflaged. This location provided a local shopping area with a sense of place and there should be limited impact on visual amenity and lack of visual clutter. This mast would result in a harmful impact on the visual quality of the wider street scene.

·         Residents were concerned that the installation of these poles was changing the look of communities and reducing the value of properties in the area.

·         In other parts of Europe pylons etc were put under ground.

 

The following comments were received from members in support of the proposed planning application

 

·         The 5G network was crucial to this rural area.

·         There were several masts in Birchwood already installed and only one complaint had been received.

·         Residents realised the value of the masts.

·         Local residents had complained at a meeting recently how poor the signal was for Wi-Fi.

·         It was necessary to move along with technological improvements to look to the future.

·         The mast provided the apparatus to allow people to work from home. A balanced approach must be taken.

·         It was understood the mast would be located against the wall of the Co-op to allow adequate space for mobility devices to pass.

·         Home Grange was a distance from the proposed mast location.

·         The application provided the service we were looking for.

·         The height of the pole was not an issue here.

·         Once installed, people tended not to notice them.

·         There was already a bus shelter and a lamp post in the area which took up a great deal of pavement space.

·         If the pole did not impact on access in anyway and was not in the middle of the public highway there was no reason to refuse permission.

 

The following questions were raised by Members:

 

·         Why was the location of the mast in the middle of the footpath?

·         Could officers give clarification to the pavement space available for mobility scooters, wheelchairs and pushchairs once the mast was installed to allow members to take an informed decision.

 

The Planning Team Leader offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         The location of the proposed pole and associated cabinets would be against the wall of the Co-op store and not in the middle of the pathway. The footpath was 2.5 metres in width. The Highways Authority had raised no objection to the proposals.

·         The cabinets were already permitted development and did not require planning permission. It was the pole only that required permission.

 

RESOLVED that Prior Approval be approved.

 

Standard Conditions

 

• Five year Time limit of the permission
• Development in accordance with approved plans