Agenda item

Description:

This Application sought planning permission for the installation of a 17.5m high mobile phone mast, microwave dish, 3 equipment cabinets and ancillary equipment.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that no objection was raised by the Tree Officer, Pollution Control (Environmental Health) or the County Highways Authority. 

The following informatives were recommended:

1. The applicant will need to provide a Category 0 Design & Check Certificate for the proposed mast installation (see Annex C of BD2/12 for model certificate). - http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol1/section1.htm) on the highway. Assuming that the steel mast is CE marked suitable, this design/check would principally be for foundations (i.e. a declaration that the choice/design of the proposed foundation is suitable for the mast at this specific location). The location would be a lower priority site using the UKRLG document ‘Provision of Road Restraint Systems on local Roads’, meaning that the level of risk is generally acceptable (this relates to vehicles leaving the road and encountering a hazard -.

http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/en/utilities/document-summary.cfm?docid=5803F825-EFC-4858-B2A75 D0DCE3382A9)

2. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway or any works that may affect a drainage channel/culvert or water course. The applicant is advised that a permit must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. All works on the highway will require a permit and an application will need to be submitted to the County Council's Street Works Team up to 3 months in advance of the intended start date, depending on the scale of the works proposed and the classification of the road.

The Planning Development Manager advised the Committee that six additional representations were received raising comments similar to those set out in the committee report.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Griffiths spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development and raised the following key points:

•           No objection to the mast but did object to its location

•           Loss of grass verge

•           Removal of trees

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

•           Location is a concern

•           Intrusive

•           Concerns over loss of tree – visual amenity concerns

•           Trees absorb pollution, loss of tree would lead to increase in pollution

•           Surrey County Council has agreed to the use of their land which has caused a problem

•           Cannot refuse it

•           Impact on street scene

•           Concern over size of base

•           Impact on adjoining buildings

•           Health and safety issues

Councillor I.J. Beardsmore requested that it was recorded in the Minutes that he would *did abstain from voting.

Decision:

The Application was refused for the following reason:

The proposed mast would, by reason of its siting and appearance, fail to make a positive contribution to the street scene, would be out of character with the surrounding area and fail to achieve a satisfactory relationship with the adjoining buildings, contrary to policy EN1a and b of the Council’s Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009.

[*amended by Planning Committee at meeting on 17/05/2018]