Planning Officer Report 06/02107/B

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:155104}} ### Considerations {{table:155099}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:155100}} {{table:155101}} {{table:155102}} {{table:155103}}

Officer's Report

Site

• The application site is a northern corner of a grazing field, which forms part of the farmland to Ballakissack Farm, located approximately 500m to the west of the A5.
• A public footpath is set to the north west of the application site. The path links School Lane to the Moaney Road.
• There is an electricity supply line supported by telegraph poles which runs across the field.

• The site is not zoned for development in the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) 1982.
• The site is surrounded by agricultural fields.
• Approximately 11m to the northwest of the application site is a Manx Telecom monopole mast. This mast has a total height of 12.5m to the top of the antennas.
• To the north east of the application site is hedge which is approximately 2m in height.
• Approximately 400m to the east of the site is the residential property of Rose Cottage, Main Road, Santon

Proposed Development

• The application is proposing to install a 12.85m high monopole mast with associated equipment cabinets.
• The mast will have 3 no. panel antennas and 3 x 600mm dishes.
• Three equipment cabinets will be installed on site. These will measure as follows:
• Electrical meter cabinet - 1m x 0.32m x 1.1m
• Equipment cabinet - 0.77m x 0.68m x 1.94m
• Power One PSU - 0.8m x 0.85m x 1.94m
• The mast, antennas, dishes and equipment cabinets will be colour coated green.
• A 1.2m high timber post and rail stock proof fence.

Development Plan Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982.
• Isle of Man Strategic Plan (Modified Draft) (November 2004)

Planning History

• 00/00992 – Creation of mobile telecommunications site including 11m monopole - 06.11.2000

Representations

• Santon Parish Commissioners have objected to the application.
• The commissioners strongly oppose the erection of aerial masts by rival firms in addition to those already in position. Whilst it is appreciated that there may be commercial problems with mast sharing it is manifestly undesirable to double the number of such masts around countryside of it is possible for them to be shared. Is sharing practical?
• Equipment cabinet should ideally be such as to blend with the countryside where appropriate e.g. as cabinet in stone at mast site, Ballavair Farm beside Pound Road.
• The Director of Customer Services of Manx Telecom have commented on the following comments:
• I am writing to request that the Planning Committee gives due consideration to the prevention of the proliferation of radio transmitter mast in relation to ten of the planning applications.
• The Manx Telecom mobile radio network has been developed over the ten year period from 1996. In doing so, we have had to meet the full requirements of the Planning Committee, including the provision of a comprehensive justification for proposed sites at a particular location. In addition,

for the proposed sites as Dalby, Glen Maye and Foxdale we have had to demonstrate planning gain through the removal of the existing tower at Arrasey.

• In developing our radio network, we have also had to comply with the Coordination of Transmission Aerials (CoTA) directive from Government. CoTA exists to reduce the number of sites required on the Island and Manx Telecom has been a member of this Committee since its inception in 2001.

• With respect to the ten planning applications listed in Annex A, either a Manx Telecom radio site already exists at the location or the applicant states that site sharing at the nearby Manx Telecom site is not an option. In all cases, we notify the Planning Committee that no approach has been made to Manx Telecom to mast share or to develop the existing site to enable mast sharing.

• We believe that mast sharing is an important element in the development of radio networks. To this end, we have already informed Cable and Wireless that we agree with the principle of mast sharing where it is deemed appropriate to do so. Indeed, we have already agreed to proceed with mast sharing at two other sites requested by them.

• Customer requirements will require Manx Telecom to continue to develop its own radio network and we will be submitting applications for additional sites as and when necessary. Our experience to date is that any application for new structures is subject to full consideration by the Planning Committee and that permission is not readily granted. It would be most unfortunate if an unnecessary proliferation of masts were to be approved now to create a second network, which could then have a negative effect on the future development of radio networks to meet customer demand. Mast sharing at this time could avoid this problem.

• Annex A lists the monopole at Ballakissack.

• Manx National Heritage (MNH) have made the following comments in relation to a number of applications:

• The above applications form part of the infrastructure for a new mobile telecommunications network proposed by Cable and Wireless. In total we understand that the planning office has deemed that twenty-three proposals require planning permission, but in reality there will be around four times this number of new installations needed to make this system functional.

• The Trustees of MNH are deeply concerned at the scale of this scheme, which would appear to fly in the face of both the purpose and the draft findings of the Committee on Transmission (CoTA), set up in October 2001 as a result of a Council of Ministers’ consideration in February 2001 that there was a need for a policy framework with the overall objective of minimising the number of sites where new masts would be required, taking account of new technologies and encouraging mast sharing. Consideration was also given to requiring any proposal for the development of a new or further development of an existing site to minimise the impact the development would have on the natural and cultural environment and to show that there was no viable alternative solution. None of these applications can realistically be considered in complete isolation, as the impact of the network as a whole must be assessed.

• The Draft Strategic Plan rightly considers this issue and states “11.9.3 A Committee which includes representations from all interested parties has been established to co-ordinate the use and development of communication masts and infrastructure. The Government Plan 2004/7 includes a proposal to increase mast sharing by operators.

Infrastructure Policy 4:

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.

• In planning statements accompanying several of the applications where site selection and the potential for sharing facilities have been discussed, the applicant claims to have approached the development on the basis of creating a minimum network required to operate effectively and robustly in the face of estimated demand, thus minimising environmental impact and maximising effectiveness against initial cost.

• In our view, however, all the applications lack detailed consideration of the concept of employing the best available technology in order to minimise the cumulative impact of this network on the Manx landscape. In many of the applications the developer has dismissed the possibility of redeveloping existing sites in favour of co-location, this the creation of an additional single-user mast together with attendant equipment cabins, cabinets and security compounds. The result is that where, less than a decade ago, telecommunications masts were a rarity on the Island there is now one set of masts for Manx Telecom, another set proposed by Cable & Wireless, and the prospect of yet more for Cloud9.

• This is clearly proliferation of exactly the kind which CoTA process was designed to avoid: mast sharing was a key element of the recommendations drafted by the Committee. Planning Approval for such an infrastructure will have a significant impact on the Isle of Man and its landscape.

• Furthermore, we are concerned that in bringing forward a network which has been avowedly developed on the basis of minimising new sites, there will consequently be great pressure on the Planning Committee to give approval for all of the applications, since if one falls, then the effectiveness of the network will be reduced or even compromised to the point where it is unworkable. The base station sites are particularly vulnerable in this respect.

• Under such circumstances, we believe that it would be most appropriate for all of these applications to be considered together by an independent planning inspector with the opportunity to assess properly the impact of the entire network and the technical background necessary to make an informed recommendation. For this reason, on a matter which is clearly of national significance, we would strongly urge that these applications be "called-in" for public inquiry

Assessment

• This application is one of many recently submitted applications by the applicant for the installation of various types of telecommunication developments across the island.

• In May 2006, the Communications Commission licensed two operators to offer mobile telephone service in the Isle of Man. These were Cable & Wireless Isle of Man Ltd (the applicant) and Wire9, through its Manx subsidiary Cloud9.

• In late September 2006, an initial meeting was held with the applicants to discuss the general principles for rolling out a new mobile phone network for the whole of the Island. This meeting was then followed by subsequent meeting to discuss site specific issues.

• The options for the design used by an operator will be affected by the site conditions, technical constraints, landscape features and capacity requirements. The main options would include

• Mast and/or site sharing;
• Installation on existing buildings and structures;
• Camouflaging or disguising equipment
• Using small scale equipment;
• Erecting new ground based masts.

• The applicant was guided towards using existing masts, site sharing in the first instance and then new mast being the last resort.

• As a result of these meetings Cable and Wireless and National Grid Wireless have sought a number of determinations for whether planning permission would be required to install antennas, dishes and equipment cabinets on a number of existing telecommunication sites over the Island. These are:
• DHA Jurby Tower
• DHA Kimmeragh Tower
• DHA Ballasaig Tower
• DHA Peel Hill Tower
• DHA Snaefell Tower
• DHA Carnane Tower
• DHA ESJCR Tower
• NGW Port St Mary
• NGW Glen Maye
• NGW Laxey
• NGW Union Mills
• Mast a Broadcasting House.

• These were considered not to require planning permission or at least require planning permission for external equipment cabinets.

• These sites along with the Beary Park Transmitter gives a total of 13 existing masts will be used as part of the new network without the need of installing a new mast at these sites. The applicants are proposing to use 38 sites to set up the initial network. Therefore 34.2% of the sites are existing masts.

• In terms of site sharing, this is where a new mast will be located alongside an existing mast. 9 of the sites are considered to be site sharing, which is 23.7% of the sites.

• Overall the 57.9% of the new network will be based on mast/site sharing locations.

• In terms of the location of apparatus on existing buildings or structures (excluding masts), the applicant has identified 5 buildings to locate their apparatus on, which is 13.2% of the total number of sites.

• In terms of the installation of new masts, the applicants are proposing 11 new masts to be installed on the island, which is 28.9% of the sites.

• This application is proposing a site share.

• The applicant has indicated the site is in order to provide coverage and services to potential customers in the Santon area. The site will offer coverage to the settlements of Santon and westerly areas of Newtown. It will also provide coverage along large stretches of the A5 and A25 passing through the Santon area. In addition, parts of the A26 between St Marks and Braaid will also receive coverage. In addition to the coverage, the site is also part of a network of sites that communicate by dish link which must have direct line of sight to one another to operate.

• In the site selection process the applicant has identified no existing dedicated telecom sites or suitable existing structures on which to mount the antennas, apart from the existing Manx Telecom site adjacent to the application site.

• The applicant states that the existing Manx Telecom mast is a discrete single user monopole that has been thoughtfully designed to ensure it is as visually unobtrusive as possible, given the somewhat open location. They feel that redeveloping this structure into one that would be able to

accommodate the equipment of both operators would remove most of the aforementioned benefits of the original site – and be significantly more visually intrusive.

• In terms of the visual impact of the mast within the locality, the structure is an alien feature which could affect the character of the landscape. The proposed mast is probably the least intrusive design which could be developed for the purpose. For that the applicant deserves recognition. The applicant considers the most obvious choice of site location for a new mast would be in direct colocation with the existing Manx Telecom site. The site is approximately 500m away from the nearest main road and 400m from the nearest residential properties. The proposed site adjacent to the existing Manx Telecom site does not benefit from significant levels of natural screening. The existing Manx Telecom mast is visible from the public highway along with a number of telegraph poles in the vicinity. The mast is also visible from other locations. The proposed mast is similar in height to the Manx Telecom's mast. However, the proposed mast height is the approximately same as that of the existing Manx Telecom mast, and will benefit from the same far-reaching backdrop. Neither mast would break the far-reaching sky-line from views from the passing A5 main road.

• The applicant believes any alternative site within the area would be more exposed and in much closer proximity to residential properties. The applicant has carefully considered the options available and acknowledges the visual impact of a mast in an open location. On consideration I do feel the mast will harm the character of the landscape to some degree. However, I do not consider that the introduction of an additional vertical element will appear incongruous by reason of its siting, height and visual appearance within the locality.

• If it is considered that the mast does affect the character of the landscape the policies set out an exception for allowing a visually intrusive mast in a sensitive location, i.e. countryside 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, coverage reasons and whether the proposed dish would not have a direct line of sight to another mast. I therefore consider the applicant has demonstrated the essential need of this location.

• The comments from MNH also focus on the proliferation of masts in the Manx landscape. Furthermore, the points raised in their correspondence also relate to the natural and cultural environment and the cumulative impact on the Manx landscape.

• Cable and Wireless are using a site sharing option. This reduces the need for new mast to be erected within the countryside. A proliferation of masts near to one another could cause greater visual intrusion so it is vital that the masts are designed sensitively in order to reduce their cumulative visual impact. I consider the applicant has taken all the necessary steps to limit the impact of the proposed mast within the landscape through its siting and colour coating of all apparatus to be used at the site so as to blend with the surrounding landscape.

• With Manx Telecoms suggestion of mast sharing, it has been a Government policy objective to encourage telecommunications operators, wherever practicable, to share a mast and sites, as a means of reducing the overall mast numbers. The current mast in place would be an option available for mast sharing. However, this would mean that a much larger and taller mast would need to be installed at the site. I consider mast sharing to be unacceptable in terms of visual impact on the

surrounding area. I consider the proposal currently before you is the most preferable as it has the least impact on the visual amenities of the locality.

• I disagree with Manx National Heritage's comment if one of the planning applications falls, then the effectiveness of the network will be reduced or even compromised to the point where it is unworkable. Manx National Heritage has not taken a practical approach in the assessment of the application. The failure of any site does not mean the network is ineffective or unworkable. It just means that the applicant has to propose an alternative site which is appropriate for the locality and to provide the coverage for that particular area. The applications are purely to allow an assessment of site specific issues and not to assess the cumulative impact on the network as a whole.

• In terms of the health issues of a telecommunication mast, the Isle of Man has no specific guidelines in how to deal with such concerns. However, the UK Government has produced such advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 – Telecommunications (PPG8). PPG8 expressly advises that where a proposed telecommunications installation conforms to the recommendation of The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (The Stewart Report) and the Guidelines for the public exposure set by The International Commission On Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) then the local planning authority should have no concerns with regard to health and safety issues.

• The application is accompanied by a certificate of compliance with the World Health Organisation ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure.

• The Health and Safety Inspectorate is responsible for the monitoring of telecommunications installations to ensure compliance with the ICNIRP Guidelines.

Recommendation

I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions in the attached schedule.

Party Status

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.

Whilst Manx National Heritage represents a statutory authority, the points raised in correspondence relate to the natural and cultural environment and the cumulative impact on the Manx landscape. The Manx and Museum and National Trust Act 1959 allows Manx National Heritage to promote the permanent preservation for the benefit of the people of the Isle of Man of lands and tenements (including buildings) of beauty or historic interest and as, regards lands, the preservation (so far as practicable) of their natural aspect, features and animal and plant life. Since the site is located in an area not zoned for development within the countryside, I consider that Manx National Heritage does have sufficient interest in the application and I therefore recommend that Manx National Heritage should be afforded party status in this instance.

Manx Telecom has a mast located near to the proposed site and the comments made by them in terms of mast sharing are a material planning consideration. I therefore consider that Manx Telecom should be granted party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 23.02.2007

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the installation of a 12.85m monopole mast with associated equipment cabinets as shown in drawing numbers 02107/1, 081/010 Issue A, 081/012 Issue C, 081/013 Issue C, 081/014 Issue C, 081/017 Issue A dated stamped 6th December 2006, Supporting statement prepared by CH2M Hill dated 4th December 2006, Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines dated 23/11/06.

C 3. Within one month of the installation of the mast, antennas, transmission dishes and equipment cabinets hereby approved, they shall be colour coated in full accordance with details shown on the approved plans. Any replacement or modification shall be colour coated to match within one month of being carried out.

C 4. In the event of the mast and equipment cabinets erected under this approval becoming redundant it must be taken down and removed from the site within 3 months of cessation of use.

Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...

File Note

Following a discussion on the merits of the case, the Planning Committee have approved the application. However, the Committee have attached an additional condition to the permission.

C5.

Prior to the commencement of works, full details of a landscaping scheme shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, and those works shall be carried out as approved. All planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation of the site. Any tree or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species, unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.