Appeal Decision

Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF. Tel: (01624) 685859 Fax: (01624) 685943 Chief Executive: R. A. Hamilton,

Please reply to the Chief Executive

Our ref: RAH/LC 5 December 2000

Dear Sir/Madam, ON APPEAL: 99/1340 - Mr D Walton - Erection of pivoting mast for radio aerial, Ballaghennie, Lezayre Road, Ramsey I refer to the recent appeal hearing in respect of the above planning application.

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 1 to the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report of the person appointed to hear this appeal.

I am directed to advise you that the Minister, having considered the report has agreed to accept the recommendation of the appointed person. Accordingly, he has directed that the appeal be dismissed and that the decision of the Planning Committee to refuse the application be confirmed.

Yours faithfully, Chief Executive. See overleaf for circulation list/... ... ...

1. Mr D Walton, Ballaghennie, Lezayre Road, Ramsey, IM8 2TA
2. Ramsey Town Commissioners, Town Hall, Ramsey, IM8 1RT
3. Hon A R Bell MHK, Legislative Buildings, Douglas, IM1 3PW
4. Department of Transport, Highways and Traffic Division Development & Planning, Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, IM1 2RF
5. The Editor, IOM Newspapers, Peel Road, Douglas
6. Manx Radio Newsroom, Douglas Head, Douglas
7. The Editor, Peel City Guardian, 14 Douglas Street, Peel, Isle of Man
8. Manx Broadcasting and Journalism Bureau, 16 Close Cubbon, Peel, IM5 1MS
9. Secretary, Planning Appeals, Government Offices, Douglas
10. Director of Highways and Traffic, DOT, Sea Terminal Buildings, Douglas
11. Mr. T. O'Hanlon, Treasury, Government Offices, Douglas
12. Secretary, Planning Committee, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas
13. Chairman and Members of the Planning Committee
14. Ms J Green, 80 Lakeside Road, Governors Hill, Douglas

Appeal By Mr D Walton Against The Decision Of The Planning Committee To Refuse To Approve The Proposed Erection Of A 30 Foot Tilt Over Pivoting Mast For A Radio Aerial At Ballaghennie, Lezayre Road, Ramsey

The Site And Surroundings

1. Ballaghennie is a detached two storey house which fronts onto Lezayre Road immediately to the west of one of the entrances to Ramsey Grammar School. A school footpath runs behind and parallel to the rear boundary of the property with the school playing fields beyond. The synthetic sports pitch forming part of the playing field area is provided with floodlights on 12.5m columns. Apart from the school, the site is in a residential area, well endowed with trees.

The Case For The Appellant

The main points were:

1. The mast was required to house an aerial for amateur radio purposes only. It was a leisure activity involving short periods on a few evenings and at weekends. The tower would be 8 metres tall. It was proposed to erect it at the side of the house without guys as supplied by the manufacturer. If the Committee required it to be guyed for safety reasons, it would be left upright permanently instead, perhaps, of being lowered when not in use or in high winds. The method of lowering it would be by a hand winch, which would be time consuming. When fully lowered, the end of the tower would be 7 metres from the road boundary and some 12 metres from the school boundary. It would be less than 2 metres high when fully lowered. The mast would be only half the size of the floodlight masts at the school, which were less than 100 yards from the property. It was intended to use a cubical quad aerial at the top of the tower.

Planning Committee

The main points were:

1. Ballaghennie was in a well established residential area fronting onto a busy highway. The mast would be a visually intrusive alien feature in the streetscape, detrimental to the amenities of other residents and highway users. Although the Committee would not require the mast to be guyed, it would be difficult to enforce any requirement for the mast to be lowered when not in use, as it could not be ascertained when the facility was actually in use for transmissions. It was true that the lighting columns at the school were 12.5 metres high, however, their visual impact was not comparable to that of a mast in the proposed location since their location was well away from the highway.

Ramsey Town Commissioners

The main points were:

1. They opposed the proposal due to its visual impact, and if guys were attached there could be wind noise. It would be an intrusive feature in a residential area, and it could be a distraction for passing motorists.

Inspector'S Conclusions

1. The main issues are whether the proposed structure would be detrimental to the appearance of the residential area or to highway safety. I have taken into consideration the fact that it should not be necessary for the mast to be guyed and that it could be lowered when not in use. The evidence at the Inquiry indicated however that that was unlikely to be undertaken after each time it was in use even if no guys were attached. Although it is to be erected at the side of the house and may therefore not be so prominent as to distract passing drivers, especially when trees in the vicinity are in leaf, it will be a prominent feature visible to those who live in the immediate area or who pass on foot. In reaching my conclusion that approval should not be given, I have taken into consideration the existence of the very much more obtrusive lighting columns within the large school playing fields. I accept that these might be regarded as justification for a single much lower tower as proposed, but in my opinion the nature of the proposed mast located within the residential curtilage would be visually intrusive and to the detriment of the appearance of the residential area.

Recommendation

1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and that the decision of the Planning Committee be confirmed.

Miss Gillian M Pain Inspector

Appearances

The Appellant: Mr D Walton The Planning Committee: Mr B Humphrey Ramsey Town Commissioners: Mr P S Harrison