Siting of 21m high telecommunications mast including a radio station, 3 antennas, 2 equipment cabinets, ancillary equipment together with a 1.8m high security fence.
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Judith M Humphreys
Minutes:
Erect a 21m high
telecommunications mast, including a radio station, 3 antennae, 2 equipment
cabinets, associated equipment, along with a 1.8m high security fence
The Members had visited the site.
Attention was drawn to a
petition that had been submitted which referred to similar issues as those
which had already been submitted along with oral observations from the Public
Protection Unit.
(a)
The Planning Manager
elaborated on the background of the application, and noted that the application
had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 3.7.17 so that the
Members could visit the site before making a decision. It was noted that the
site was located on the outskirts of Penygroes at the rear of the telephone exchange site
which contained one permanent single-storey building. It was explained that residential houses were
located on the far side of the public road to the direction of the north, west
and east with the following nearby, Ysgol Gynradd Bro Lleu, Ysgol Uwchradd
Dyffryn Nantlle and Plas Silyn Leisure Centre.
From the information submitted, it was noted that
the reason for the proposal was to carry out the Government's aim to provide a
4G signal where it did not already exist in rural areas.
In
response to the objections voiced at the Committee on 03.07.17, the applicant
submitted additional information that justified locating the mast on this
specific site and these had been included in the report. It was also
highlighted that a "Declaration of Conformity with the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Public Exposure
Guidelines" had been submitted as part of this application. It
confirmed that the development had been certified as being in compliance with
ICNIRP guidelines, namely the recognised guidelines for this type of
development.
An objection had been received on the grounds on
concern about the impact of the development on health, and specifically on the
health of the children at the nearby Nursery, Primary School and Secondary
School along with users of Plas Silyn Leisure Centre.
Although it was acknowledged that concern had been raised regarding the
potential impact on health, it was not considered that the proposal was
contrary to national policies or the LDP and there was no need for further
information to assess the potential impact of the development. It was noted that Planning Policy Wales
stated clearly in relation to the implications of such development proposals on
health, that WG was of the opinion that the local planning authorities should
not further consider any health impacts or the concerns about them when
processing an application for planning permission or approval beforehand if the
development satisfied the requirements of ICNIRP.
It was noted that with this
type of development, it would inevitable that the proposed main structure would
be partly visible from public places as it needed to be in a fairly open
location to ensure that it worked to its full capacity. It was explained
that the closest dwellings were approximately 50m and 90m away from the site of
the application in various directions; it was acknowledged that this type of
development would have some visual impact on the nearest dwellings, however, it
was considered that impact would not be substantial in this case. It was noted
that a number of narrow, high structures already existed in the area, such as
electricity poles and street lighting, and as this would be a narrow and simple
structure in essence, it would unlikely have a long term impact on the visual
amenities of the local area.
(b) The
following main points were made by a member who was acting as a local member
(not a member of this Planning Committee):-
·
Objected to the mast's
proposed location - eager to re-locate in a more suitable place
·
The mast would have an impact
on visual amenities and would be too close to houses, a nursery, schools and
leisure centre
·
The community sought to boost
pride and improve the visibility of the village - the mast would undermine the
effort to improve appearance
·
Satisfying the need for
affordable housing for local people by installing a mast so close - it would
create a oppressive impact on the houses. (Grŵp Cynefin intend to build
affordable housing here and were threatening to pull out if the development was
approved).
·
The mast would create
continuous noise
·
Other appropriate locations
needed to be considered
·
The Well-being Act needed to
be considered
·
The local community was
concerned about the negative impact of the development on health, in particular
on the children's health.
·
Referred to international
studies and appeals which showed the impact of electronic magnetic radiation on
health
·
Sufficient reasons to cause
concern - the location of the mast posed too much risk
c) The Senior Solicitor took the opportunity
to draw the Members attention to recent issues that had appeared before the
High Court regarding challenges relating to masts and the impact on health. It
was emphasised that the challenge had failed and that the High Court had been
supportive of the Council's decision. He also noted, as no evidence had been
submitted by the objectors and that information had been submitted with the
application showing that it satisfied statutory requirements, health should not
be considered as a reason to refuse the application.
ch) It was proposed and seconded
to refuse the application due to the impact on visual amenities
d) During
the ensuing discussion, the following points were highlighted by individual Members:
·
The location was unsuitable
·
The applicant should assess other sites
·
The design was not a good one - less industrial
designs should be considered
·
The long-term impact of the mast should be
considered - the location was unique - too close to educational establishments
2½ - 18 years old
·
Unaware of the health impacts, therefore precaution
was needed;
·
Telecommunications Companies should be encouraged
to share a mast
·
Refusing the application would be irresponsible and
contrary to guidelines
dd) In
response to a question relating to Grŵp Cynefin's intention to develop
affordable housing in this area, it was confirmed that this proposal would not
have an impact on any proposals to develop on nearby land and that no such
application had been received as of yet.
e) In
response to the observations, it was noted that the Planning Service would not
be in a position to enforce mast sharing, but certainly, it would be good
practice in regards to developments of this kind.
f) A vote was taken on the
proposal to refuse the application and it fell on the Chair's casting vote.
It
was proposed and seconded to approve the application.
A vote was taken on the
proposal and it fell.
The Senior Solicitor noted
that the decision should be deferred on the grounds that both proposals had
failed.
RESOLVED to defer the application
Supporting documents: