Agenda item

Minutes:

The Senior Development Management Officer introduced planning application number 138096 – application for the installation of 25m communications tower, antennas, ground-based apparatus and ancillary development.

 

The officer confirmed that the latest revisions to the NPPF did not change the recommendation of approval within the report.

 

The first speaker on this application was Norman Gillan, agent for the applicant, as well as being a planning consultant and member of the Town Planning Institute.  He raised the following points in support of the application:

 

·         The Wireless Infrastructure Group (WIG) was a neutral infrastructure provider, and had over 2000 communications sites across the UK. When communications providers identify sites of interest, this was managed by WIG;

 

·         A search had been undertaken for a suitable site in the area to provide 4G by Cornerstone, the infrastructure arm of Vodafone and O2.  Sewage treatment works were often ideal locations for such structures as they were often close, but not too close to settlements, and usually had extensive tree planting around them;

 

·         The main concerns around this application were the impact on the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), residential amenity, and the impact on heritage assets and listed buildings;

 

·         The infrastructure included a 25m lattice shareable tower with additional apparatus, which would be for O2 in the first instance, with the option of Vodafone being allowed to share. The height required for the mast provided a minimum level of coverage;

 

·         The Tealby Sewage Treatment Works were located within the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB.  A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) noted that there would be a ‘minor adverse’ to ‘negligible’ effect at distances of over 200 metres.  As trees around the site grew, this could reduce to a ‘residual’ to ‘negligible’ effect;

 

·         The overall impacts on the AONB were considered acceptable.  A future ground based mast should not be required;

 

·         The response from the Conservation Officer within the report was that there was not enough information to make a judgment;

 

·         The LVIA as previously stated noted the lack of impact at distances of over 200 metres; the boundary of the conservation area was 230 metres from the site;

 

·         The visual impact on certain nearby properties could be mitigated by tree coverage, and the screening effect they provide;

 

·         All apparatus used was designed to international standards;

 

·         As the site was within the AONB any future height extension would require future planning permissions;

 

·         Microwave transmission links were used, but were ‘point to point’ only; communicating between this mast and others within the same network;

 

·         It was considered that the application was in compliance with the development plan.  There would be some impacts, but they were considered acceptable.  Installations such as this would bring 4G and 5G to settlements such as Tealby.

 

Note: Councillor David Cotton declared two personal interests as the church at Tealby was mentioned in objections to the proposal, and he worked for the Diocese.

 

Councillor Cotton also confirmed he was a customer of O2, and could stand to benefit from a mast in that area.

 

The final speaker was David Naseby, an objector from Tealby Tennis and Bowls’ Club.  He raised the following points:

 

·         The previous speaker had failed to recognise that the closest point of the proposed tower would be the Tennis and Bowls’ Club, which was used for several different types of activity.  The closest point was the children’s’ tennis area, within 200 metres of the proposed mast.  A straw poll of parents at the club resulted in 20% of parents saying they would stop bringing their children to the site.  This could jeopardise the future of the club;

 

·         A narrow lane was shared between the sewage works site and the tennis club; it was unclear what the impact of a new site would be on the tennis club.  It was requested that a full assessment be undertaken;

 

·         Councillors were reminded of statutory obligations in regards to community facilities, and any impact that might be suffered as a result of the proposal;

 

·         Mr Naseby could only object at this point because there was no full assessment on what could happen to the tennis club; and all of the communities that use the site;

 

Officers responded to the public speakers with the following information;

 

·         There was no specific planning policy requirement to assess the impact on the tennis club; however the officer report detailed what had to be taken into account on the grounds of health.  Non-ionising radiation was explicitly referred to in the NPPF;

 

Following this update, Members provided their comments and questions on the application.  These comments, and answers to the questions are provided below:

 

·         The AONB Management Plan was not part of the development plan, but was a material planning consideration;

 

·         Any later increase in the height of the mast would require permission. The adjacent plantation to the sewage works did provide some screening; in the fullness of time these trees would mature;

 

·         Access to the tennis club could not be conditioned as part of the permission.  The access to the tennis club would be a legal right rather than a planning requirement;

 

·         Due process had been followed and the tennis club were aware, and were consulted on the application.  There was some overlap between legislation on the health impacts of the application; it was reiterated to Members that the correct assessments had been undertaken and standards had been met;

 

Note: Councillor Mick Devine arrived at 1858; he did not take part in the debate on this application, and did not vote.

 

·         There was no physical impact on the tennis club.  The most meaningful impact would be on the club’s shared access with the sewage works, but this was not seen as a reason for refusal.  Lincolnshire Highways had not objected to this application;

 

·         The entire development required planning permission as it was within the AONB;

 

One Member raised the question of whether more harm would be done to the environment within the AONB, and whether this harm would outweigh the benefits that the mast would bring.  There were conservation areas within Tealby and Tealby Thorpe, and the mast would have proximity to some listed buildings within the area.  This was moved as refusal of the application as printed.

 

Following this last comment, a vote was taken on refusal of the application, using sub-section d of policy LP25 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP), policy LP 17 of the CLLP, Paragraph 170(a) of the NPPF, as well as paragraphs 172, 193 and 196.  Also listed were section 85(1) of the Countryside Act 2000 and section 72 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.

 

The vote for the above motion was lost; the officer recommendation within the report to approve subject to conditions was then moved and seconded, and it was therefore:

 

AGREED that the application be GRANTED subject to conditions:

 

Conditions stating the time by which the development must be

commenced:

 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990 (as amended).

 

Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the

development commenced:

 

None.

 

Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the

development:

2. The development shall proceed in accordance with the following approved

drawings: 100 Rev F; 200 Rev F and 300 Rev F.

Reason: For the sake of clarity and in the interests of proper planning.

 

3. The tower shall be coloured goose grey unless otherwise agreed in writing

by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To mitigate the visual impact of the proposal in accordance with

Policies LP17, LP25 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

Conditions which apply or relate to matters which are to be observed

following completion of the development:

 

4. No lighting shall be added to the tower unless details have first been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To mitigate the visual impact of the proposal in accordance with

Policies LP17, LP25 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

5. Within 6 months of the ceasing of all telecommunications operations at the

site, the tower, equipment and fencing shall be removed from the site and the

ground returned to its current use.

Reason: To ensure that landscape quality of the area is retained in

accordance with Policy LP17 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

Note: Councillor Thomas Smith requested that his vote against the officer recommendation of granting subject to conditions be recorded.

 

Supporting documents: