APPLICATION NO:
REPORT OF:
HEAD OF BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
AUTHOR:
Darren Williams
TELEPHONE:
01737 276172
E-MAIL:
darren.williams@reigate-banstead.gov.uk
TO:
PLANNING COMMITTEE
DATE:
5 January 2005
AGENDA ITEM:
6
04/01836/F
WARD:
RC
RECEIVED:
29/07/04
AGENT:
Waldon Telecom
APPLICANT:
O2 (UK) Ltd
LOCATION:
LAND AT ALBERT ROAD NORTH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, REIGATE
DESCRIPTION:
Installation of 20 metre column, radio equipment housing and ancillary
development thereto
DRAWING NUMBERS:
P/18349E/GEN/050 rev A, 051
SUMMARY
At the meeting on the 1 December 2004, the Committee resolved that its was minded to
refuse the application. The application was therefore deferred in accordance with the agreed
protocol. A copy of the previous reports is appended with addendum items incorporated and
identified by the use of italics.
Officers’ advice was also requested on additional information that had been received by Cllr
Whinney and Cllr Bennett from one of the objectors.
A copy of that information has now been obtained. It includes one appeal decision dated
May 2004 from East Devon, and references to another appeal decision and legal cases from
various anti-mast websites, in particular regarding the relevance of health in the decision
making process.
The copied appeal decision is one in which an Inspector dismissed an appeal for a
telecommunications mast primarily because of the lack of information submitted with the
application. The Inspector concluded that he had insufficient evidence to assess and explain
the potential health effects on local people. The references to case law appear to relate to
cases dating from 2001-2002. The reference to another appeal decision relates to an appeal
for a telecommunications mast in Bath allowed in July 2004 but where the Inspectorate now
accepts there were errors of reasoning.
On the limited information provided the other appeal cases can be distinguished on their
facts from the current application and are therefore of limited relevance. The court cases
referred to appear to relate mainly to clarifying that health concerns may be a material
consideration in determining planning applications. This is now established case law, is
recognised in paragraph 5.14 of the appended report. I am satisfied that the issues have
been appropriately reported and considered in the report, in particular paragraphs 5.14 and
5.15 on the weight to be given to concerns about health.
RECOMMENDATION
D:\106743158.doc
The recommendation remains that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the
conditions set out in the appended report.
Should the Committee be minded to refuse the application, the following reasons were
tabled at the meeting on 1 December 2004, and have been suitably modified to take account
of the recent adoption of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004:
1. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the operator has adequately considered
alternative sites for the installation, in particular three other sites on the industrial
estate (Denman Group, Material Measurements Ltd and RDO Kitchens) and one
nearby at the Reigate Lawn Tennis Club. The proposal would therefore be contrary
to policies Ut1 and Ut2 of the adopted Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan
1994.
2. The siting, design and height of the mast would be intrusive and detrimental to the
visual amenities of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies Ut1
and Ut2 of the adopted Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 1994.
D:\106743158.doc
[Report to meeting on 1 December 2004, with addendum added in italics]
APPLICATION NO:
REPORT OF:
HEAD OF BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
AUTHOR:
Darren Williams
TELEPHONE:
01737 276172
E-MAIL:
darren.williams@reigate-banstead.gov.uk
TO:
PLANNING COMMITTEE
DATE:
1 December 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
[6]
04/01836/F
WARD:
RC
RECEIVED:
29/07/04
AGENT:
Waldon Telecom
APPLICANT:
O2 (UK) Ltd
LOCATION:
LAND AT ALBERT ROAD NORTH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, REIGATE
DESCRIPTION:
Installation of 20 metre column, radio equipment housing and ancillary
development thereto
DRAWING NUMBERS:
P/18349E/GEN/050 rev A, 051
SUMMARY
The applicant has demonstrated that additional transmission capacity is needed in the area
to deliver third generation mobile telephone services to customers in north-west Reigate.
The application demonstrates that alternative means of provision have been considered but
there are no alternative locations that are available to the applicant that would be less
intrusive.
The impact of the proposed mast would not be significantly harmful to the character or
amenities of the residential areas beyond the industrial estate. On the evidence submitted it
appears that rejection of this site would either force the applicant to look into less appropriate
installations in residential areas or within the Green Belt, or result in continued signal
deficiency in north west Reigate. Alternative means of provision could have greater
environmental consequences and be potentially controversial.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning permission is GRANTED subject to conditions.
D:\106743158.doc
Consultations:
Highway Authority: no objection.
Network Rail: no objection in principle subject to agreement that there would be no
interference with Network Rail’s infrastructure. Network Rail has contacted the applicant
direct to inform them of their procedure on this matter.
Representations:
Neighbours were notified by letters dated 02/08/04. 374 letters have been received raising
the following issues:
Issue
Response
Alternative location / proposal preferred
See paragraphs 5.4 - 5.9
Harm to Conservation Area
Somers Road and Colley Lane/ Flanchford
Road are the nearest Conservation Areas.
They are approximately 200 metres to the
east and west respectively and therefore
the mast would not have any material
impact on their character or appearance.
Harm to Green Belt, Rural Area, Area of
Great Landscape Value and Site of
Special Scientific Interest
The site is approximately 200 metres
within the Urban Area and the impact upon
these countryside areas is therefore very
limited. See paragraphs 5.8 & 5.9
Harm to the character of the Pilgrims Way
and Beech Road Residential Area of
Special Character
See paragraphs 5.8 & 5.9
Harm to wildlife habitat
The site is in an industrial estate and
would not reduce any soft landscaping. It
is not a recognised wildlife habitat
Hazard to highway safety
See paragraph 5.15
Health fears – The Council should take a
precautionary approach
See paragraph 5.14
Proximity to Micklefield School - the school
buildings are within 500 metres and the
sports field within 250 metres
See paragraph 5.14
The applicant has not undertaken all the
searches as stated on their submitted
statement and the application is therefore
flawed
See paragraphs 5.2 - 5.9
Inconvenience during construction
This is not a reason for refusing planning
permission. See paragraph 5.15
Loss of private view
Not a planning consideration.
paragraphs 5.10 - 5.13
Loss of/inadequate parking
The site is a highway verge that does not
provide any official car parking
No need for the development
See paragraphs 5.2 - 5.7
D:\106743158.doc
See
Noise and disturbance
See paragraph 5.15
Out of keeping with the character of the
area
See paragraphs 5.10 - 5.13
Overdevelopment
See paragraphs 5.10 - 5.13
Overbearing
See paragraphs 5.10 - 5.13
Property devaluation
Not a material planning consideration
Contrary to covenant(s) on the land
Not a material planning consideration
Interference with radio and TV signals
Not a material planning consideration.
Government licensing arrangements are
administered to prevent signal interference
Five further letters have been received together with the opportunity to view a video that has
been circulated by objectors.
Four of the letters from three local companies who occupy premises in the industrial estate
and one from the Reigate Lawn tennis Club in Manor Road make claims that the applicant
has not approached them to discuss mast siting on their premises, as is stated in the
applicant’s supporting information on the application. The implication in each case is that the
applicants search for alternative sites is flawed.
The applicant has been given the opportunity to clarify the position of these four claims. A
summary of their response is as follows:





Approaches have been made to the commercial premises in question, although in
some instances contact was with junior members of staff rather than the managing
directors.
Two of three companies and the Lawn Tennis Club have also objected to the mast,
and either explicitly or implicitly confirm that they would not wish a similar installation
on their premises.
The commercial companies in question do not hold the freehold interest in the
industrial estate, and are therefore only one influence on the use of the land.
The applicant rejects any suggestion that they have misled, or intended to mislead,
the Council on alternative sites.
None of the identified properties have confirmed their interest in a
telecommunications installation within their responses
Other issues raised in the letters include:
Issue
Response
The mast would have a significant
aesthetic impact on the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
The site is approximately 200 metres
within the Urban Area and 870 metres from
the boundary of the AONB – This is not
therefore a significant or material
consideration.
Prejudicial to businesses due to the
stress and worry about the impacts of
a mast
See paragraph 5.14.
material planning issue
Therefore not a
The video is a documentary made in the United States in 2000, including perceived health
risks of telecommunications networks. This video does not change the national guidance
published by the government on telecommunications networks in this country in PPG8. A
D:\106743158.doc
summary of this guidance as it applies to health concerns is set out in paragraph 5.14 of the
report.
1.0
Site and Surroundings
1.1
The application site relates to a hard surfaced verge located centrally within the Albert
Road North industrial estate, north west of Reigate town centre.
1.2
The character of the area is industrial with varying degrees of quality and age of
industrial buildings. The access to the estate is via Albert Road North, which
comprises predominantly late 19th Century and early 20th Century residential properties
but with a mix of newer properties within it. At the western end of Albert Road North is
a more recent residential development, Churchfield Road. Other residential
development in the area includes Evesham Close (to the south-west), Cannons Close
(to the east) and Manor Road (to the north).
1.3
To the north the railway line demarks the boundary of the industrial estate. The railway
is sited on an embankment and is therefore at a higher level than the general level of
the estate and the application site. Beyond the railway (to the north) are the rear
gardens of the houses in Manor Road, within the Pilgrims Way and Beech Road
Residential Are of Special Character. These properties have relatively long (60 metre)
rear gardens and with the mature trees alongside the railway line. The trees include a
mixture of deciduous and evergreen species, the industrial estate and the site is
therefore largely screened from view from the houses.
2.0
Relevant History
2.1
There is no relevant planning history on this site. However, the operator has submitted
two previous applications, both relating to sites off Reigate Hill:
04/00666/TED
Installation of 12.5 metre high
telecommunications column and 2
equipment cabins
Withdrawn due to
close proximity to the
Holmesdale
Community Infant
School
03/02733/TED
Installation of 12.5 metre high
telecommunications column and 2
equipment cabins
Withdrawn due to
private ownership
issue
3.0
Current Proposal
3.1
This is a full application for the erection of a 20-metre high single pole column and an
equipment cabinet approximately 1.4 metres high and 1 square metre in area. Both
would be painted green.
3.2
The application is supported by signal coverage plot diagrams showing existing
coverage in the local area and how this would alter if the development went ahead. It
indicates that a current signal deficiency ion north west Reigate would be resolved
allowing third generation mobile phone services to be delivered throughout the area.
The submission also includes details of alternative options that have been considered
but not progressed, often due to lack of landowner agreement.
D:\106743158.doc
4.0
Policy Context
4.1
Local Plan Designation
Urban Area
Employment Area
4.2
Surrey Structure Plan 1994
Protecting the Environment
Telecommunications
4.3
Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 1994
Utilities
4.4
Ut1, Ut2
Surrey Structure Plan First Alteration Deposit Draft 2002
Sustaining the Environment
Infrastructure and Development Needs
4.5
PE10
DP8
SE4
DN1
Local Plan First Alteration- (Revised Deposit Draft) 2000
None Relevant
4.6
Other Material Considerations
Planning Policy Guidance Notes
Other
5.0
Principal Issues
5.1
The main issues to consider are:



PPG 1, PPG 8
Human Rights Act 1998
Policy on telecommunications
Impact on the character of the area
Health and other Issues
Policy on Telecommunications
5.2
Local Plan policy Ut2 aims to guide telecommunications masts to the least obtrusive
sites, to encourage mast sharing where possible, and to exercise design control. The
amplification to policy Ut2 notes that the Council will also have regard to PPG8
‘Telecommunications’, which has been revised and reissued since the plan was
adopted. PPG8 indicates that whilst the growth of new and existing
telecommunications systems should be facilitated, environmental objectives must be
observed. All endeavours must therefore be made to minimise the visual impact of
any installation, including the assessment of alternative sites and the potential to
upgrade existing installations to avoid the need for further masts.
5.3
The information submitted with this application and with the previous submissions
noted in section 2 demonstrate that there is a need for network improvements to
telecommunication provision in this area.
D:\106743158.doc
5.4
The applicant has undertaken a search of the area for alternative sites and this has
included opportunities for mast sharing, mounting on large buildings and alternative
freestanding sites.
5.5
With regard to mast share opportunities the 30 metre high Orange/Railtrack mast
located off Nutley Lane, allowed on appeal in 1999, provided the only realistic
opportunity. However due to technical and land ownership issues this mast is not
available for further site sharing and I am satisfied that the applicant has explored this
option without success. There are no other masts in this locality that offer either the
opportunity or coverage required by the applicant.
5.6
With regard to large buildings the site is located within an industrial estate. However
the buildings are either not suitable for a roof mounted antenna system or the
landowner or leaseholder is not interested in agreeing to the development. The rest of
the area is predominantly residential and this provides little opportunity for building
mounted or freestanding systems. The applicant was asked to explore the possibility
of mounting a mast on a town centre office building, and Electron House at 43 London
Road, Reigate was cited as a possible location. However, by reason of its relatively
close proximity to the applicant’s existing mast on the Bancroft Road multi-storey car
park it would not address the deficiencies in the search area and could cause some
interference with the coverage provided by the present mast. I am therefore satisfied
that the applicant has explored this option without success. No further building
mounted options were put forward in any of the objections.
5.7
With regard to alternative freestanding sites, other sites that have been considered but
have proved inoperable include a site off Reigate Hill, which was withdrawn due to
proximity to a local school; and a site within the same industrial estate, which was
withdrawn when the landowner refused their consent.
5.8
With regard to potential alternative sites some representations have been received
about the possibility of siting the mast in the Green Belt to the west and north. Whilst
this option could result in a mast being located further away from populated areas,
both development plan polices and national planning guidance in PPG2 presume
against such inappropriate development. To address this issue of inappropriateness it
would be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate very special circumstances that
would override the harm to the Green Belt. In this case this would have to include an
exhaustive search of the potential alternative solutions in the urban area before this
could be contemplated. In this context the appeal decision on the mast proposal at the
Orchard, Land north of Slipshatch Road, Reigate is relevant. In that decision the
inspector concluded - amongst other issues - that, not all the options in the urban area
had been fully explored and exhausted and therefore very special circumstances for
development within the Green Belt had not been demonstrated. Accordingly it would
not be appropriate to consider alternative provision within the Green Belt unless and
until all options within the Urban Area have been exhausted.
5.9
I am therefore satisfied that because this site represents a possible, and in policy
terms acceptable, location in the urban area, an alternative site in the Green Belt is
unlikely to be viewed favourably.
Impact on the Amenity and Character of The Area
5.10 The main element of the proposed development would be a single monopole type
mast, which would be 20 metres high, including the shrouded antennae array. In view
of the industrial nature of the locality this development would not detract to any
material extent from the immediate character of the industrial estate. Whilst private
views of a development are not a material planning consideration, the following
D:\106743158.doc
analysis of the proposal from the perspective of nearby residential areas may help is
assessing its likely impact.
5.11 The top of the mast would be visible in some views from the surrounding area,
including from residential areas. The nearest residential properties are located to the
south on Albert Road North. However, because of the relatively narrow entrance to
the industrial estate and the scale and siting of the industrial buildings, the number of
properties that with a direct view of the mast would be limited. Within Churchfield
Road the properties that border the industrial estate have an east to west orientation
and therefore their visibility of the estate is limited and in any event the views of the
site and mast would be severely restricted by the intervening industrial buildings.
5.12 With regard to the impact on the outlook and amenities of the properties in Manor
Road, because of the changes in levels together with the intervening railway
embankment and mature tree screen, it would mean that any view of the mast would
be limited to glimpses and the structure would not appear as a prominent or dominant
feature. I do not therefore consider that the effect on the outlook from these properties
or amenities of the private garden areas would be unacceptably affected. A condition
is recommended to retain control over the finish and colour of the mast and equipment
cabinet.
5.13 The impact on other residential properties in Evesham Close and Cannons Close that
have adjoining boundaries with the industrial estate would be limited by reason of the
height differences and intervening trees and industrial buildings.
Health and Other Issues
5.14 Health concerns may be a material planning consideration in relation to
telecommunications development. However, the Government, through its advice
contained in PPG8 ‘Telecommunications’ makes it clear that in its opinion, provided
the base station complies with the international ICNIRP (International Commission on
Non-Ionising Radiation Propagation) guidelines for radiation levels, there should be no
need to consider health matters any further.
5.15 The applicant has confirmed that the total radiation from the telecommunication
equipment would be within the recommended ICNIRP levels. On this basis, there is
no reason to believe that an objection on grounds of actual health risk could be
sustained. The perception of health risk, even when not based on any objective
assessment of health risk, may exceptionally amount to a material planning
consideration. However, given the details of the development and distance between
the development and places where people live, I do not see justifiable grounds for
resisting the development on this ground.
5.16 The proposed mast would not result in any significant traffic movements and I
therefore I do not consider the proposal would result in any significant level of noise or
disturbance.
CONDITIONS
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years
from the date of this permission.
Reason:
To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2.
The cabinet and mast shall be painted green as specified in BS4800 12 B 21.
D:\106743158.doc
Reason:
In the interests of the amenity and the character of the locality and in accordance with
Local Plan policies Ut1 and Ut2.
3.
The development hereby permitted shall be removed from the land, and the land
reinstated to its former condition as soon as reasonably practicable after the
development is no longer required for telecommunications purposes.
Reason:
In the interests of visual amenity.
REASON FOR PERMISSION
The development hereby permitted has been assessed against development plan polices
Ut1, Ut2, DP8, PE10, SE4 and DN1 and material considerations, including third party
representations. It has been concluded that the development is in accordance with the
development plan and there are no material considerations that justify refusal in the public
interest.
D:\106743158.doc