Local democracy during coronavirus

During coronavirus, we've made some changes to how we're running council meetings. See our coronavirus updates for more information on meetings and decisions.

Agenda item

Telecommunications Mast Park Inn North Street, [20/01031/FUL]

This application seeks permission for the upgrade of existing rooftop telecommunications equipment including ancillary works [Micklegate]

 

Minutes:

Members considered a full application from Hifzul Moosa for the upgrade of existing rooftop telecommunications equipment including ancillary works.  Planning permission for a previous scheme (19/02629/FUL) had been refused on 14 February 2020.  Revisions made since the refused scheme had included a reduction in  the number of proposed antennas as well as the removal of the proposed dishes and external cabinets.

 

Officers gave a presentation based upon the slides at pages 19 -28 of the Agenda, there were no additional officer updates or clarification questions.

 

Mr Ocean Melchizedek spoke in objection on the grounds that he felt an invalid ICNIRP certificate had been submitted as part of this application as the cumulative radiation of all transmitters, when operational, had not been calculated.

 

Cllr Baker, Ward Member for Micklegate, spoke in objection and made the following points:

-      That concerns regarding exposure to EMF are widespread

-      That there are carcinogenic effects of this technology

-      That there is a lack of evidence on the ecological effects of this technology

-      That there are questions over the public benefit of this technology

 

In response to questions from Members, officers confirmed that the NPPF suggests that planning decisions should support the expansion to communications technology and support the introduction of 5G which explained the officer recommendation.

 

After debate, Cllr Galvin moved, and Cllr Fisher seconded, that the application be approved, in accordance with the officer recommendation.  Cllrs: Crawshaw, Cullwick, Fisher, Galvin, Kilbane, Orrell, Perrett, Waudby, Webb and Hollyer all voted in favour of this motion. Cllr Craghill voted against this motion and the motion was declared CARRIED. It was therefore:

 

Resolved:            That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions listed in the report.

 

 

 

Reason for Approval

 

The Park Inn Hotel is an existing site for telecommunications equipment, which provides 3 existing antennas. It is acknowledged that the proposals to upgrade the equipment to provide 5G coverage will result in a greater level of visual impact; the numbers of antennas to be provided will increase to 6 (with one antenna contained within the aperture casing), increase the bulkiness of the equipment as well as these being taller structures than those in situ on the building. Whilst the equipment would still be visible, they are designed in a way to be less visually intrusive within views. Careful consideration has been given to the statutory duties with regard to designated heritage assets. Whilst the proposal would result in harm to the designated heritage assets, this harm is assessed as being less than substantial. The application has demonstrated that there are public benefits of the proposal, notably compliance with Section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which supports high quality communications and which further supports social and economic objectives which are considered to outweigh the less than substantial harm identified to heritage assets.

 

The application satisfies the requirements of the ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines on radio frequency and NPPF paragraph 116.

 

It is considered that the proposed scheme would not have an adverse impact that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, taking into account the details of the scheme and any material planning considerations. It is considered that the NPPF and policies C1, D1, D4 and D5 of the Publication Draft Local Plan (2018) and GP1, GP18, GP20 and HE3 of the Development Control Local Plan (2005) are satisfied

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page