Appeal Decision

Department of Local Government and the Environment

Rheynn Reiltys Ynnydagh as y Chymmyltaght

Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF. email: [email protected] Tel: (01624) 685954 Fax: (01624) 685943 Chief Executive: R. A. Hamilton, Assoc. LP.D., M.I.Mgt.

Please reply to the Chief Executive Our ref: RAH/GC 14 December 2001 Dear Sir/Madam,

ON APPEAL: Planning Application No: 00/01610/B - Manx Telecom Limited - Installation of 3 antennae with new mast head amplifiers, existing mast, Manx Telecom Site Off Baltic Road, Kirk Michael

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 approve the application be confirmed.

Yours faithfully,

Chief Executive

See overleaf for circulation list ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

TO: 1) Mrs P Naylor, Little Acres, Baltic Road, Kirk Michael, IM6 1EF 2) James Barr Chartered Surveyors & Planning Consultants, 226 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 2LN 3) Mrs V Williamson, Clerk to Michael Commissioners, Commissioners Office, Main Road, Kirk Michael, IM6 1ER 4) Highways Section, DOT, Sea Terminal Buildings 5) The Editor, IOM Newspapers, Publishing House, Peel Road, Douglas 6) Manx Radio Newsroom, Douglas Head 7) The Editor, Peel City Guardian, 14 Douglas Street 8) Manx Broadcasting and Journalism Bureau, 16 Close Cubbon, Peel, IM5 1MS 9) Ms. J. Green, 80 Lakeside Road, Governors Hill 10) Secretary, Planning Appeals 11) Secretary, Planning Committee 12) Mr. T. O'Hanlon, Treasury 13) Chairman and Members, Planning Committee

Appeal by Mrs P Naylor against the decision of the Planning Committee to grant planning permission for the installation of 3 antennae with new mast head amplifiers on an existing mast at Manx Telecom Site, off Baltic Road, Kirk Michael.

1. The Inquiry into this appeal was scheduled to be held on Tuesday 9 October 2001, the site having been inspected on the previous day. However following advice that the Appellant would not be able to appear because of a family bereavement and with the agreement of the Department and the Applicant Company, it was decided that the Appeal could be handled through the Written Representations Procedure. This report contains a site description, an appraisal of the written evidence, my conclusions and a recommendation.

Site Description.

1. The appeal site is a compound on the hillside, high above and to the south east of Kirk Michael. Although elevated and thus easily seen, the site is only partly up the sloping hillside and the existing mast is mostly seen against the dark background of the fields which surround it.
2. The compound is in generally open countryside, the nearest dwelling being about 130 m away on the down slope to the north and adjacent to the narrow country lane which continues further up the hill.

Appraisal.

1. Although, in earlier letters, objections are raised to the location of the existing mast, its appearance and to the additional visual intrusion occasioned by the current proposal, recent letters of objection from both the Appellant, who lives in the nearest dwelling and the Kirk Michael Commissioners concentrate on the perceived health risks possibly associated with such installations.
2. It is argued that since it is uncertain whether emissions from masts constitute a health risk and that much contradictory evidence is circulating, the only sensible approach is caution and a great deal more research.
3. In the meantime the precautionary principle should be applied and the proposal refused or at least conditions should be set requiring shielding of the nearby house and frequent monitoring of the dose levels in the vicinity.
4. On the question of visual amenity, the Committee sees no significant additional impact in the proposal.
5. In the absence of specific Isle of Man planning guidance on this specialist topic, current UK Planning Policy Guidance can be taken to provide an indication of general planning principles and good practice.

1. In this case the UK Guidance suggests that while health considerations and public concern can in principle, be a material planning issue, "the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards".
2. In following that advice and with the assurance that the current ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure would not be exceeded, it was concluded that there was no planning basis to reject the proposal.
3. In any event it subsequently became apparent that the work is intended to be carried out within permitted development rights.
4. The Applicant Company provides substantial documentation and case studies in support of the stance taken by the Committee.

Conclusions.

1. At my site visit I took particular note of the location of the compound and its mast, the exposure of the site and its proximity to nearby housing.
2. While the mast is clearly visible from both distant views on the main road, from the main housing areas of Kirk Michael and the nearby public lane past the property of the Appellant, I consider that the minor changes to the appearance of the mast would be hardly visible, even from the closest public viewpoint and that no significant additional visual impact is involved.
3. The health issues and perceived risks are less clear cut. While the Appellant accepts that the planning process is not the place to debate the strength and results of scientific studies, it is argued that sufficient uncertainty exists for the precautionary principle to be applied.
4. Firstly it seems to me that the response of the Committee in this case has followed the pattern set by many other similar bodies elsewhere where the UK Guidance has been adopted. It is a common approach where other legislation exists with a more specific set of controls.
5. Secondly in respect of the precautionary principle, the Applicants draw attention to a case settled in Scotland where this principle was identified. Following that pattern it seems to me that in this case some similar aspects are common.
6. The mast is in open country away from residential areas, while the nearest house is a similar distance to that quoted and found acceptable in the Scottish case. In addition the emissions are very substantially lower than the levels set in the appropriate guidance.
7. In my opinion therefore and, even if the work could not be carried out under permitted development rights, this proposal complies with the various "planning" tests and can be seen to meet those aspects of the precautionary principle identified

AP 1718 : PA 00/1610 elsewhere.

Recommendation.

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

C A Jenkins Independent Inspector.

.