Install one 17.5 metre high telecommunications mast including 3 antenna and 2 transmission dishes along with 2 equipment cabinets and 1 meter cabinet and ancillary work.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Dafydd Owen
Minutes:
Erect a 17.5m high
telecommunications mast, including three antennae, two broadcast satellites,
two equipment sheds and one measuring cabinet and associated work.
(a) The Senior Development Control Manager
elaborated on the background of the application, noting that the site was
located against a backdrop of high, wooded land, above the A55 trunk road. The
plan was an amendment of a previously submitted plan on a site approximately
200m south that was withdrawn because of concerns about the possible impact on
a nearby scheduled ancient monument.
Attention
was drawn that observations had been refused objecting to the application
during the public consultation based on the concern regarding the possible
impacts on wildlife, harmful visual impact, harm to the designated historic landscape,
harmful impact on nearby relics, potential harm to the nearby trees, harmful to
the amenities of the users of the busy public footpath nearby and that the
development could be harmful to the historical well nearby thus polluting the
water flowing from it.
It was noted that Policy
PS 3 of the LDP supported provision of new facilities to extend or improve
connectivity through communication technologies in all areas of the Plan,
subject to appropriate protection measures.
It was reported that a
declaration of Conformity with the ICNIRP requirements (International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) had been submitted as part of
the application, which confirmed that the development had been certified as
complying with the ICNIRP guidances, namely the
internationally recognised guidance for this type of development.
With this type of
development, it was inevitable that the proposed 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. Nevertheless, in this case, it was
believed that the site's wooded location meant that the tower would be fairly
hidden from most public places. On the whole, it was considered that the tower
was unlikely to have an obvious long-term impact on the visual amenities in the
local area.
It was noted that
information had been submitted with the application listing other sites that
were considered prior to deciding on this site. It was clear that these had
been disregarded for various reasons. It was therefore acknowledged that an
attempt had been made to find other sites but that this had been identified as
the most suitable for the proposal following the consideration of practical,
technical and amenity matters.
It was not believed that
there would be any significant detrimental impacts on the amenities of local
residents as a result of the development. It was noted that the site was
suitable in terms of its location and was acceptable in terms of its impact on
the general and residential amenities of the area.
The development was
acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for the reasons
noted in the report.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:
·
That he was speaking on behalf of the
local residents who objected to the proposal;
·
That relocating the telecommunications
mast was a material change rather than a change to the proposal;
·
That the applicant had not assessed
sites as part of the existing application and the pre-application process had
not been followed;
·
That the provision was needed but there
was a need to weigh up in terms of the impact on local amenities;
·
The Committee was asked to visit the
site as the site was inappropriate to the site and that there were better sites
and that the visual impact of the mast would be worse than what was shown in
the photos submitted as part of the application.
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent
noted the following main points:-
·
That the 3G and 4G service provision in this area
was very poor and that users were unable to use the provision indoors;
·
That the site of the mast had been moved by 200m
since the previous application in response to CADW's observations;
·
That the development would bring social and
economic benefit to the area;
·
That it would contribute to the Government's
objective in terms of providing a 3G and 4G service;
·
That the mast would be 45m away from houses;
·
The mast would be higher than the trees nearby,
reducing the height of the mast would lead to the installation of more
equipment.
(ch) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) noted
the following main points:
·
That the new site was further away on lower land,
and questioned how the signal would reach the dip;
·
Concern regarding the visual impact;
·
Concern that the proposal would lead to polluting
the water in the nearby well;
·
Of the opinion that the mast was too close to
houses;
·
Would like to see a diagram to see by how much the
signal would extend;
·
Confirmation would need to be received on how
electricity would reach the site; either overground
or underground;
·
Suggested that a site visit should be undertaken;
·
That there were better alternative locations for
the installation of a mast.
(d) It was proposed and seconded to defer the
application in order to hold a site visit and receive more information.
During the
ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
That information needed to be received in terms of
the area that the mast would provide a signal to and in terms of the need and
the existing provision;
·
That the visual impact had been assessed in the
report but not the technical aspect;
·
That information needed to be received about the
number of other sites assessed;
·
That the provision was needed in Tregarth;
·
That it appeared that the mast was located on the
wrong side of the hill and that more information needed to be received;
·
That there was a lack of provision in the area and
that it affected the economy;
·
That the companies associated with the application
had extensive experience in the field;
·
That confirmation was needed about where the
electricity line for the mast would be and whether a track needed to be created
for it;
·
That the concerns needed to be discussed with the
Local Member before contacting the applicant;
·
That confirmation was needed that the water sources
would be safe and that the development or the associated engineering work would
not affect the flow of water into the well.
RESOLVED to defer the application in order to hold a site visit and receive more information.
Supporting documents: