Loading document...
The application site is located in field no. 524278, which is situated approximately 200m east of West Baldwin Road (B22). The field is situated within a larger area of farmland that is predominantly used as arable farming. The site is part of Ballamillaghyn Farm. The site is not zoned for development and it is also zoned as Open Space (Agricultural) and High Landscape Value in the Braddan Local Plan 1991.
The application is seeking approval for the installation of 12.2m high monopole mast with associated equipment cabinets and meter cabinet. One of the equipment cabinets will be 850mm in length, 800mm in width and 2m in height. The other equipment cabinet will 900mm in length, 750mm in width and 2m in height. The meter cabinet will be 300mm x 950mm x 1.2m. The proposed equipment cabinets, mast, antennas and dish will be colour coated green. The mast and equipment cabinets will be contained within a 1.25m high post and wire mesh stock-proof fence.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Infrastructure Policy 3.
General Policy 3 states that "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
Environment Policy 1 states that "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
Environment Policy 2 states that "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown:
Infrastructure Policy 3 states that "A balance must be struck between the need for new evolving communications systems to satisfy residential and business demand and the impact that the necessary infrastructure will have upon the environment. Measures which may help to achieve a satisfactory balance will include a presumption against visually intrusive masts in sensitive landscapes, the encouragement of mast sharing by different operators, and the removal of redundant infrastructure. Exceptions to this policy would need to demonstrate a strategic national need, which cannot be otherwise secured by mast sharing or alternative locations."
15 June 2009
Within the adopted Braddan Local Plan 1991, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Policy 13.4
Policy 13.4 states that "No further development in the countryside will be permitted with the exception of those referred to in Policy 13.2 and those which are required for National Strategic Reasons, and those required for essential Agricultural purposes. All areas designated as open space must be respected and no further intrusion will be permitted."
There have been no previous planning applications considered relevant to the assessment of this application.
Braddan Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application. The occupiers of 4 Mount Rule Cottage objection is principally in respect of the public view of the mast and equipment as viewed from the countryside in which their live - the public highways, the view from and the character of which is a material planning consideration, as encapsulated in Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Island Strategic Plan.
They believe the mast would appear as an artificial element in an otherwise very natural landscape. The site and the surrounding area is designated as an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic or Coastal Significance in the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and the Braddan Local Plan 1991, which their believe warrants special protection against inappropriate and unwarranted development as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2.
They also believe that in terms of Infrastructure Policy 3 that the mast are located in a sensitive landscape as identified in the 1982 Development Plan and the extant Local Plan there should be a presumption against the mast and cabin in this location.
The objectors have noted that the need for the mast and cabin is to address current black spots in mobile telephony coverage. They accept that in a limited section of West Baldwin, the lower parts, it is not possible to receive a signal. However, this area is very limited in size and they do not consider that the visual intrusion caused by the mast is warranted in terms of resolving a coverage problem in such a small area. They also consider it should not be a realistic or desirable objective to have every last inch of the Island accessible by mobile telephone and why there is a need for full coverage considered there are land line available within the few houses within the area.
The objectors also do not accept that there is sufficient problem in coverage at Nobles Hospital to warrant setting aside the presumption against the mast in Environment Policies 1 and 2 and Infrastructure Policy 3.
There are also concerned about the mast will be visible from the ground floor rooms and the front garden of their property. They appreciate that interference with a private view is not a material planning consideration.
It should be noted that the one of the objectors is a Planning Officer within the Department.
This application is proposing to erect a new mobile phone mast in Mount Rule. The principle aim of this development is to provide coverage into the village of Baldwin and the upper River Glass Valley (West Baldwin). An area where is no reliable coverage from any operator. The applicant has also indicated that it would address coverage problems at New Nobles Hospital, Tromode Road, Johnny Wattersons Lane and the A18 between Kate's Cottage and Windy Corner. The applicant has further
indicated that if this proposal is not accepted, two or more of the proposed discounted options would need to be developed.
In the site selection process, the applicant has considered a number of sites ranging from the Nobles Hospital to Creg ny Baa. The sites considered are as follows:
New Nobles Hospital - Site share with Manx Telecom would require a significant increase in mast size and an additional site would still be required as this site would not provide coverage into Baldwin.
Cronk Breck - The site has been discounted on the ground that a mast would be visually intrusive and would only provide coverage to Baldwin.
Cronk ny Moghlane - The site has been discounted on the ground that a mast would be visually intrusive and would only provide coverage to Baldwin, West Baldwin and the A18.
Renscault Farm - The site has been discounted on the ground that a mast would be visually intrusive and would only provide coverage to Baldwin, West Baldwin and the A18, unlikely to improve coverage at Nobles Hospital or Tromode Road.
Creg Ny Baa - The site has been discounted on the ground that no coverage would be achieved into West Baldwin or the A18 between Kate's Cottage and Windy Corner, and will not improve coverage at Nobles Hospital or Tromode Road.
As a result the applicant feels that the current proposal represents the most effective site location.
In an appeal at Balinalargy, the appeal inspector stated that "In an area of special landscape, this being an Area of High Landscape Value, the protection of the landscape is the primary consideration. It is therefore appropriate to consider this issue first". The inspector went onto say "the policies require in the first instance that there should be no harm to the character of the landscape not that harm should be minimised."
In terms of consistency, the same issues apply as the site is located within an Area of High Landscape Value. The proposed mast is probably one of the least intrusive designs which could be developed for the purpose. The site is approximately 200m east of West Baldwin Road (B22). The site in question is a very exposed location with very little natural cover or screening to help blend the proposed mast into the landscape. The objectors from No. 4 Mount Rule Cottages have supplied photographs demonstrating the height of the proposed mast by extending the forks of a JCB so that the prongs of the fork were 12m above ground level. The photographs submitted demonstrate that the proposed mast will be visible from the public highway of West Baldwin Road and other locations in the vicinity. In most cases, the mast would clearly breach the skyline. It is considered the proposed mast would be an alien feature in this location and would adversely impact upon the character of the landscape when viewed from the surrounding area.
If it is considered that the mast does affect the character of the landscape is affected the policies set out an exception for allowing a visually intrusive mast in a sensitive location by demonstrating strategic national need and that the location is essential.
As to national need it has been stated in the inspectors report that the Government have not set out any policy for there to be full coverage. There is no policy in the Government Plan and the applicant has stated that their licence does not require them either to achieve a specific level of coverage. There is thus no national need which should be set against the primary consideration of protection of the landscape.
However, the test of essential location is a different test, the applicant has considered other locations to provide coverage within the area but have been either discounted for visual impact reasons and coverage reasons. The applicant's have indicated that if this proposal is not accepted, two or more of
15 June 2009
the discounted options would need to be developed to provide coverage. The applicant's have not indicated what design solutions have been considered to demonstrate that the other sites would be more or less intrusive than the proposed development. It is considered the applicant has not fully demonstrated the essential need of this location.
It is recommended that the application be refused for the above reasons.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupiers of 4 Mount Rule Cottages, given their distance from the application site is not granted Interested Party Status under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06.
Following consideration of the case officer's report, it was noted that occupiers of Ballaquine Cottage, West Baldwin had commented on the application.
Given their distance away from the application site the occupiers of Ballaquine Cottage are not granted Interested Party Status under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 21.05.2009
The proposed development would be contrary to Infrastructure Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and Policy 13.4 of the Braddan Local Plan 1991 by reason of its height, siting and design would result in a conspicuous and incongruous development out of keeping and scale with the surrounding area to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality. Furthermore, it has not been fully demonstrated that there is an essential need for a mast at this particular location.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005 15 June 2009
Decision Made: Refused Committee Meeting Date: 11/6/09 Signed: T. Booth Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
