Agenda item

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item including the following:

1. The application was for the replacement of the existing trisector pole supporting 3 no. antennas with 6 no. antenna apertures on 3 no. new support poles, and ancillary works thereto.
2. 52 objections had been received; many stating they objected to the application on the grounds of the impact on health from 5G technology; the impact on the heritage aspect and characteristics of the building.
3. The site is located within the City Docks conservation area and the building is designated as a ‘character’ building.
4. The replacement of the antenna would involve; the removal; replacement of the supporting poles; increase in height of the replaced supporting poles; increase in mountings; the addition of cabinets to the roof area of the building.
5. The Environmental Health Officer offered no objection to the application referring to the government guidance on Mobile phone base stations; radio waves and health in their submission.
6. Officers sought refusal of the application on the grounds that:

1.      The proposed antenna and associated equipment would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and fail to preserve or enhance the wider City Docks Conservation Area by virtue of their scale, form and prominent sitting on the most distinctive feature  present on the identified character building which is exacerbated when viewed cumulatively with existing retained equipment.

Questions for clarification

7. Members noted the location of the antennas on the roof and asked if they could be designed more in keeping with the conservation area.  No alternatives were proposed.

Member Debate

8. Members recognised that, whilst health was a material planning consideration, the way this issue had to be assessed was set out clearly in the NPPF and that this application was accompanied by the relevant self- certification, therefore the health impacts of the development were considered to be acceptable.
9. Members commented that many antennas are now designed to look like flag poles or ship mast to fall in line with the character of an area.  The proposed design was viewed as giving a cluttered affect to the roof area and not in keeping with the character of the building.
10. The alternative view was given that the clock tower was not hugely noticeable and that may be the case with the proposed antennas.
11. Cllr Mead moved that the application be granted subject to further details being provided on the colour details of the equipment.  Cllr Chris Windows seconded this Motion.  (Officers advised that due to the nature of the antennas they could give no assurance that it was possible to influence the colour aspect.)
12. On being put to the Vote the Motion was Lost (Voting 5 for, 6 against and 1 abstention).
13. Cllr Davies then moved that the application be refused on the grounds set out in the Officer’s report. The proposed antenna and associated equipment would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and fail to preserve or enhance the wider City Docks Conservation Area by virtue of their scale, form and prominent sitting on the most distinctive feature present on the identified character building which is exacerbated when viewed cumulatively with existing retained equipment.

14. Cllr Stevens seconded this Motion and on being put to the Vote it was:

15. Resolved – (voting 6 for, 5 against and 1 abstention) that the application be refused on the grounds set out in the Officer’s report. The proposed antenna and associated equipment would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and fail to preserve or enhance the wider City Docks Conservation Area by virtue of their scale, form and prominent sitting on the most distinctive feature present on the identified character building which is exacerbated when viewed cumulatively with existing retained equipment.