13 Sutton Cycle Track Path Sutton Road Shrewsbury.Pdf

Committee and Date Item

Central Planning Committee

31st May 2012 13

Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Stuart Thomas email: stuart.thomas@shropshire.gov.uk Tel: 01743 252665 Fax: 01743 252619

Summary of Application

Application Number: 12/01858/TEL Parish: Shrewsbury Town Council

Proposal: Erection of a 17.5 metre high column with cabinets and ancillary development

Site Address: Sutton Cycle Track Path Sutton Road Shrewsbury Shropshire

Applicant: Telefonica UK Ltd

Case Officer: Steve Drury email: [email protected]

Grid Ref: 350567 - 310924

Recommendation: Prior Approval Not Required.

Recommended Reason for Approval

The proposed mast and equipment cabinet will be sited in a location which will not adversely affect the appearance of the street scene or the character of the area and will not be detrimental to residential amenity. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with policies CS6 and CS8 of the Shropshire Core Strategy, Policy INF17 of the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. Shropshire Council therefore consider that PRIOR APPROVAL IS NOT REQUIRED for the proposed development received on the 30th April 2012.

REPORT

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 This application relates to determination as to whether prior approval is required for the siting and appearance of a 17.5m high dual user column supporting 6 antennas in shroud with associated ground based equipment cabinet. The mast will be galvanised steel and the equipment housing will be a fir green steel cabinet.

1.2 The top of the mast will contain a 4.5m tall shroud which will measure 500mm in diameter and will accommodate the 6 antennae. On the ground, the metal cabinet will be 1.5m high, 1.8m wide and 0.55m deep.

1.3 The equipment will be sited on a grass verge alongside a public footpath to the East of Sutton Road. It will be situated approximately 15 metres South East of the pedestrian crossing on Sutton Road.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is situated in the Sutton Farm area of Shrewsbury, which is located approximately 1 mile South of the Town Centre. It is a predominantly residential area containing a mixture of detached and semi-detached properties served by Sutton Road which runs North to South through the area. A public footpath following the route of a disused railway line crosses the highway, by way of a zebra crossing located to the North of the Sutton Farm Shopping Centre. The proposed column and equipment cabinet will be sited on the grass verge to the South of the footpath and the East of the highway. The footpath is lined by tall, mature trees on either side.

2.2 A number of residential properties are located within close proximity to the site. A recently erected two storey development (Sutton Court) contains No’s 99, 101. 103 and 105 Sutton Road and is located approximately 12 metres to the South. No. 97 Sutton Road is located to the North of the footpath and site. No 84 Sutton road is located across the highway to the West of the site.

2.3 Sutton Farm Shopping Centre is located to the South of the site and contains a supermarket, pharmacy, chip shop, motability centre and childrens nursery. The childrens nursery is located approximately 110 metres from the site and is on the far (South East) facing side of the shopping centre.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 31st May 2012

3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION 3.1 The application is on Council owned land and not in line with a statutory function.

4.0 COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultee Comments 4.1.1 SC Highways - I do not raise any highway objections in principle to permission being granted for this application.

4.1.2 SC Public Protection - Following a review of the information provided and given the location of the mast, I have no objection to the proposals.

4.2 Public Comments 36 local residents were notified about the application and a site notice was erected at the front of the site. At the time of writing, 7 letters of objection have been received from local residents citing concerns summarised as follows: -

- HealthandSafetyimpact - Detrimental visual impact - Proximity housing, nursery facilities and local shops - Devaluation of properties - Plenty of telephone masts in area already - Potential Health Risks - Proximity to Nursery

5.0 THEMAINISSUES It is considered that the main issues affecting this application are as follows: - - Principle of Development - Site History - Siting and Appearance - Impact Upon Residential Amenity - Highway Safety - Health Issues - Trees Issues

6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL 6.1 Principle of Development 6.1.1 Whilst Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG)8 has now been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework, the recommendations with regard to the telecommunications masts remains the same. This emphasises the need to meet the requirements of the national network of telecommunications, it encourages mast sharing, pre-application consultation and publicity and states the need for unobtrusive design and siting of masts.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 31st May 2012

6.1.2 Saved Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Local Plan Policy INF17 seeks siting of masts to minimise their visual impact. The new Draft Core Strategy in policies CS6 and CS8, does not refer to masts specifically, but refers to protecting residential amenity and the character and appearance of the locality balanced with the need to meet infrastructure requirements.

6.2 SiteHistory 6.2.1 The proposal has a fairly lengthy and complex history. An application for a 12.5m high column with 2 equipment cabinets was refused on land to the North of the pedestrian crossing in 2004 under SA/04/1680/MAS. The reason for refusal was as:

6.2.2 ‘In the opinion of the LPA, the installation of a 12.5 metre high column mast and its associated equipment in this prominent roadside location, would result in a form of development that would project significantly above surrounding dwellings and be visually obtrusive and detrimental to both the amenities of this residential area and the visual amenities of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings, contrary to Policy INF 17 of the Borough Local Plan’.

6.2.3 A subsequent application for a 12.5m high mast and equipment cabinet was submitted for a site approximately 150m to the South of the proposed site at Sutton Farm Shopping Centre. This application was refused on the grounds of the likely unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, the visual impact in a prominent location and reduction in the width of the footpath.

6.2.4 A further application was submitted under 11/02392/TEL for the erection of an 11.8 metre high dual user column immediately to the South of the pedestrian crossing. This application was refused for the following reason:

6.2.5 “The proposed development would be sited in an open and prominent roadside location where as a result of its height and appearance, it would form an unsympathetic addition to the streetscene which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby residents. Accordingly, the proposal is considered contrary to saved Policy INF17 of the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Local Plan and Policies CS6 and CS8 of the Shropshire Core Strategy”.

6.3 SitingandAppearance 6.3.1 The proposal will involve the erection of a 17.5m high column with associated 1.5m high equipment cabinet to the South side of the public footpath to the East of Sutton Road. It will be set 2 metres back from the edge of the footpath and 5.5 metres from the side of Sutton Road. The column will include a 4.5m tall shroud which will measure 500mm in diameter and will accommodate the 6 antennae. On the ground, the equipment cabinet will be 1.5m high, 1.8m wide and 0.55m deep. Both structures will be painted in a fir green colour.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 31st May 2012

6.3.2 The part of Sutton Road within the vicinity of the application site is relatively open, on flat terrain with relatively low rise, two storey buildings. As a result, the tallest features in the area are the trees which line the South side of the footpath. These rise to a height of approximately 16 metres.

6.3.3 The siting of the column has been selected in attempt to overcome concerns raised during previous refusals at the site, most notably its prominence within the street scene and visual impact within the wider area.

6.3.4 It is considered that the setting back of the proposed column from the edge of the carriageway will reduce its prominence within the street scene and will reduce its visual impact when viewed from distance along Sutton Road. Furthermore, the setting of the column back allows the column to benefit from the natural screening afforded by the line of trees along the footpath.

6.3.5 The column will be painted a fir green colour and will be provided in the CU Phosco MK3 style which has an appearance of a typical street column such as a lamppost. It will be situated 9 metres to the North West of the tree line immediately alongside the footpath, but is required to rise to a height of 17.5 metres in order to clear the trees. Officers note that this is a particularly tall column but have been advised by the applicant that a reduction in height in this location would not provide the necessary coverage.

6.3.6 The key issue here is therefore whether a smaller column, closer to the highway would be preferable to a taller column, set further back alongside the existing tree screen. In this instance, significant weight has been given to the degree of screening which will be afforded by the trees which it is felt will sufficiently soften the impact of the proposed column within the locality. Even in winter when leaves are not on the trees, weight has been given to the fact that the tree trunks and branches will mean that the column is not viewed in isolation.

6.3.7 The proposed equipment cabinet will also be painted in a fir green colour which will help it to blend in with the grass verge and tree line behind it. Notwithstanding this point, having regard to its size, it is unlikely to have any material impact upon the appearance of the street scene.

6.3.8 As a result of the above considerations, it is not considered that the proposed column or equipment cabinet will have a detrimental impact upon the appearance of the street scene or character of the area and complies with Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy.

6.4 Impact Upon Residential Amenity 6.4.1 As identified in Section 2 of this report, a number of residential properties are located within the vicinity of this site, the closest of which are within 12 metres of the site. In terms of the impact upon these properties, whilst the column will be clearly be visible from them, having regard to the issues considered in the previous section, including the fact that it will be sited and coloured to blend with the backdrop of existing trees, it is not considered that the proposal will have a

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 31st May 2012 detrimental impact upon the setting of those properties, or the residential amenities of their occupants. The issue of harm to views from the neighbours properties is not a material planning consideration and cannot be considered as part of this application.

6.4.2 A number of concerns have also been raised by local residents, located further from the site. In general, these can be separated into two groups consisting of concerns regarding health issues and those raising concern regarding the likely visual impact. Whilst these concerns are noted, the visual impact of the proposal has been discussed in the previous section and will not be considered further. Health issues will be addressed in the following section.

6.5 HealthIssues 6.5.1 Whilst Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG)8 has now been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework, the recommendations with regard to the telecommunications masts remains the same. The NPPF indicates that the planning system is not the place for determining health issues. Officers note the proximity to residential properties and the nursery located within the Sutton Farm Shopping Precinct, however, would advise that the application contains a declaration that the proposal meets the ICNIRP guidelines, which takes account of the cumulative effect of the emissions from the proposed installation and all radio base stations present at, or near, the proposed location.

6.5.2 In determination of the application, regard must also be given to the following points: -

1.....The Stewart Report (2000) was carried out to assess the risk to public health from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters. The report concludes that the balance of evidence suggests no clear risk to the health of people living near to base stations. The report does, however, acknowledge that children can be more vulnerable to the effects of RF radiation.

2..... The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) set guidelines in 1998 and 2009 setting out restriction values for power density, electric and magnetic field strengths which should not be exceeded in order to protect health. The applicant has confirmed that the proposal adheres to these guidelines in all cases.

6.5.3 The ICNIRP values relate to periods when the mast is working to capacity, however, in practice, masts are likely to be working at significantly less than capacity for the majority of the time. In addition, ICNIRP values concern exposure levels likely to take place 24/7. In practise, children at school would only be exposed to RF for a much shorter part of the day.

6.6 HighwaysIssues The SC Highways Officers comment that the proposal does not raise any undue concerns from a highway safety perspective and no objection is therefore raised to the proposal.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 31st May 2012

6.7 Trees Issues Comments of the Trees Officer have not been received at this stage and will be reported prior to the committee meeting.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 No objection is raised to the siting and design of the proposal in respect of its visual appearance and impact upon the street scene and character of the area. It is also not considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact upon residential amenity. With regard to health considerations, officers have given due consideration to the siting of the mast, however, note that the proposal complies with ICNIRP guidelines and also note the findings of the Stewart Report (2000) which concludes that the balance of evidence suggests no clear risk to the health of people living near to base stations.

7.2 As a result of the above considerations, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policies CS6 and CS8 of the Shropshire Core Strategy, together with Policy INF17 of the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. Prior approval is therefore not required.

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES APPRAISAL 8.1 Risk Management There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows: As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can be awarded  irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal - written representations, a hearing or inquiry.

The decision is challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplication of  policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose first arose.

Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non-determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

8.2 Human Rights Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 31st May 2012

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

8.3 Equalities The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in planning committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are likely financial implications of the decision and/or imposition of conditions is challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependant on the scale and nature of the proposal. The financial implications of any decision are not a material planning consideration and should not be "weighed" in planning committee members' mind when reaching a decision.

10. BACKGROUND Relevant Planning Policies:

Central Government Guidance: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Core Strategy and Saved Policies: CS6: Sustainable Design and Development Principles CS8: Facilities, Services and Infrastructure Provision INF17: Telecommunications RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: 11/02392/TEL Erection of an 11.8 metre high dual user mk3 column supporting 6 antennas in shroud with ground based equipment cabinets along with ancillary development RETEL 19th July 2011 12/01858/TEL Erection of a 17.5 metre high column with cabinets and ancillary development PDE

11. Additional Information

List of Background Papers See planning application file ref 12/018568/TEL

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder) Cllr M. Price Local Members Cllrs Jon Tandy, Ted Clarke and Liz Parsons

Appendices - None

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665