Siting of 21m high telecommunications mast including a radio station, 3 antennas, 2 equipment cabinets, ancillary equipment together with a 1.8m high security fence.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Judith Humphreys
Minutes:
Erect a 21m high telecommunications mast, including
a radio station, three antennae, two equipment cabinets, associated equipment,
along with a 1.8m high security fence.
(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the
background of the application and noted that the site was on the
outskirts of Penygroes at the rear of the telephone
exchange site which contained one permanent single-storey building. It was
explained that residential houses were located on the far side of the public
road to the direction of the north, west and east with the following nearby: Ysgol Gynradd Bro Lleu, Ysgol Uwchradd
Dyffryn Nantlle and Plas Silyn Leisure Centre.
It was noted that policy CH20 of the GUDP approved
proposals for new infrastructure and telecommunications equipment subject to
full consideration of specific criteria. It was reported that the applicant had
noted within the documents of the planning application the reasons why this
location had been chosen for the development, noting that it was part of the
Government's objective of extending 4G phone signal to areas where it did not
currently exist, in particular to rural areas.
An objection had been received based on concern
about the impact of the development on health, and specifically on the health
of the children at the nearby Primary School. It was noted that criterion
number 3 of policy CH20 ensured that proposed developments satisfied the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Protection (ICNIRP) Public Exposure
Guidelines. Information had been received indicating compliance with these
standards. Although it was acknowledged that concern had been raised regarding
the potential impact, it was not considered that the proposal was contrary to
national policies or the Unitary Plan and there was no need for further
information to assess the possible impact of the development.
Attention
was drawn to the additional observations that had been received.
It
was noted that it was inevitable for the main proposed structure to be partly
visible from public spaces due to the need for it to be in a relatively open location
to ensure that it would work to its full capacity. The nearest residential
houses were located approximately 50m and 90m away from the application site in
different directions, it was acknowledged that this type of development would
inevitably have an element of visual impact on these nearest houses, however,
it was not considered that the impact would be substantial in this case.
The
development was acceptable in terms of relevant local and national policies for
the reasons noted in the report.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the
following main points:-
·
That he was the Headteacher
of Ysgol Bro Lleu and that
there was concern regarding the proximity of the mast to the school and the
impact it could have on the children;
·
That the industrial estate would be able to better
conceal the proposal;
·
Unaware of the actual impact of such a development;
were similar developments found near other schools?
·
That parents were concerned and some were
threatening to move their children from the schools;
·
That Cartrefi Cymunedol Gwynedd were about to submit a planning
application on land nearby and were threatening to pull-out if this development
was approved;
·
Concern about the development's negative impact on
the children and the village.
(c) Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent
noted the following main points:
·
That the proposal was to achieve the Government's
aim of providing a 3G/4G signal supply where it did not currently exist in
rural areas;
·
That access to 3G/4G provision was essential in
terms of economic prosperity and that the North Wales Economic Ambition Board
supported telecommunications developments as they saw that this was necessary
in order to achieve their ambitious economic growth plan;
·
That the location of the telecommunications mast
had been moved to the rear of the telephone exchange in order to reduce the
visual impact;
·
That the mast had to be 21 metres high or it would
not work effectively;
·
That other locations had been disregarded due to
various reasons, this site was the most suitable;
·
Acknowledged that there were concerns in relation
to health; however, this was not a planning consideration as the ICNIRP
statement had been submitted which confirmed that the development was in line
with the guidelines and was safe;
·
That the location was sensible and it would fill in
the gaps in terms of the provision with significant economic and social
benefits deriving from the proposal.
(ch) The
following main points were made by a member who was acting as a local member
(not a member of this Planning Committee):
·
That the local community was concerned about the
negative impact of the development on health, in particular on the children's
health;
·
Referred to international studies which showed that
such developments did have an impact on health;
·
That there was a need to be precautionary. Was
there another more acceptable site than near the school?
·
That there was a need to consider the implications
very seriously.
(d) In response to the above observations, the
officers noted:
·
That the applicant had considered other sites and
had noted the sites considered as part of the application;
·
That it was a technical field, it was understood
that the mast needed to be located relatively close to users;
·
That there was a substantial campaign afoot to
deliver 4G signal to places where it did not currently exist;
·
A telecommunications mast up to 15 metres high
could be installed under permitted development rights without submitting a
planning application. Telecommunications masts had been approved by the
Committee recently on sites in Groeslon and Tanygrisiau;
·
That there was no doubt that there was an economic
and social need for the provision;
·
Appreciated the concerns. In terms of health, the
applicant had confirmed that the developments complies
with the national requirements.
·
Consideration should be given to carrying out a
site visit as a result of the concerns expressed in terms of the location of the
mast and the visual impact.
(dd) A proposal to undertake a site visit was made
and seconded.
During the ensuing discussion, the
following main observations were noted by members:
·
That the location was unsuitable and that there
were more suitable sites in Dyffryn Nantlle;
·
That the applicant should assess other sites;
·
That information needed to be received about the
other disregarded sites;
·
Unaware of the health impacts, therefore precaution
was needed;
·
That the Headteacher's
word was sufficient and therefore there was no need to carry out a site visit;
·
The site was unsuitable and the industrial estate
would not be suitable either.
In response to the above observations, the Senior Solicitor
noted that he understood the strong feelings and local concerns but that there
was a need to exercise caution in terms of refusing the application based on
health matters. He noted that the proposal complied with national legislation
and that the full details of the international studies had not been submitted
before the Committee. He emphasised that it would be difficult to defend
refusing the application based on health matters at an appeal. He noted that a
number of planning applications for similar developments would be submitted in
the future, therefore there was a need to be very careful in terms of binding
applications submitted in the future if the application was refused on the
grounds noted.
A member noted that she did not object to the proposal
to improve the provision, but that approximately 90% of telecommunications
masts had been located in open countryside where the signal was stronger. She
also referred to her concern in terms of the mast's proximity to the schools,
nursery and leisure centre. She noted that information should be received on
the 10 locations considered and the reasons why they were unsuitable.
RESOLVED to undertake a site visit.
Supporting documents: