Agenda item

Telecommunications mast including 12m high pole 3no antennas overall height 14.2m and associated ground equipment at junction of Boroughbridge Road and Plantation Drive. [Holgate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered an application from Vodafone Ltd for a telecommunications mast including a 12m high pole, 3 antennas with an overall height of 14.2m and associated ground equipment at the junction of Boroughbridge Road and Plantation Drive.

The Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to paragraph 4.4 which referred to Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 which, in respect of health considerations, states that if a proposed mobile phone base stations meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, it is not within the remit of the Planning Committee to consider further health aspects and concerns about them. He confirmed that a certificate had been received. He circulated drawings showing the current and proposed coverage to show the hole in coverage the applicant hoped to fill.

Representations were received from a local resident in objection to the application. He voiced residents concerns about the siting and appearance of the mast and equipment. He stated that the mast would be half as high again as surrounding buildings, that it was on a main route into city from the A59 and would stand out as there would be nothing to disguise it. He also raised concerns that the boxes would obstruct visibility at the road junction.

Representations were also received from a local shop owner in objection to the application. She circulated copies of photographs which showed how the mast and ground equipment would appear. She stated that the mast and equipment would obstruct the view of her shop and prevent cars from entering the forecourt and would be an further obstruction for disabled drivers. She also explained that it would make it difficult for passengers waiting at bus stop to see down the road. She advised Members that a small existing telecommunications box was regularly damaged and was concerned that the mast could be knocked over.

Councillor Tracey Simpson-Laing also spoke in objection to the application as Ward Councillor. She referred to advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 8. She questioned whether the Disability Discrimination Act has been taken into consideration and pointed out that this area was already quite cluttered with street furniture and could worsen the problem for sight impaired persons if approved.

Members discussed the sighting of the mast and furniture, safety issues and appearance and made the following points: -

• Siting of mast  – very close to shops in an intensive residential area
• Appearance – Concern over aesthetics of mast and equipment. The mast would be intrusive and very evident on a main route into the city
• Ground equipment is sited on an area of dropped curb
• The mast and ground equipment could obscure bus drivers’ views along Boroughbridge Road and prevent them from seeing the bus stop sign and people waiting at the nearby bus stop.
• The ground equipment would obstruct vehicle access to the adjacent forecourt to the front of 126-128 Boroughbridge Road to the detriment of the safety of drivers and pedestrians
• There is the risk that cars manoeuvring on the forecourt could damage the ground equipment or mast.

In response to a query from Members, the Planning Officer explained why the alternative sites had not been suitable. Members agreed that although it was necessary to find suitable sites for telecommunications masts, this site was not suitable for the reasons they had discussed.

RESOLVED:             That approval for the siting and appearance of the development proposed in the above-mentioned application be refused.

 REASON:

1          The proposed monopole and antenna, because of its height, design and exposed location would appear incongruous in this suburban residential location and would therefore harm the appearance of the streetscene.  This is contrary to policy GP20 of the Development Control Local Plan which states that permission will be granted for telecommunications developments where the visual intrusion of such equipment has been minimised and the proposal does not result in a significantly adverse effect on the character of the area.

 2         The siting of the monopole and associated equipment cabinets would be likely to obstruct the vehicle access to the adjacent forecourt to the front of 126-128 Boroughbridge Road to the detriment of the safety of drivers and pedestrians and would obstruct views north-west along Boroughbridge Road from the adjacent bus stop to the detriment of bus passengers.