Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE - Item No. 1

Report Title LADYWELL WATER TOWER, DRESSINGTON AVENUE SE4 Ward Ladywell Contributors Pete Smith Class PART 1 Date 21 AUGUST 2003

Reg. Nos. (A) LBC DC/03/53599 (B) TP DC/03/53559

Applications dated 18.3.2003

Applicant Mono Consultants Ltd on behalf of Vodafone Ltd

Proposals Listed Building Consent and planning permission for alterations and the installation of six antennas and equipment cabin.

Applicant’s Plan Nos. 10420364/029, 33252/364/029/001, 002, 003/D, 004/D, 005/B, 006/A & 007 and Supporting Statement.

Background Papers (1) Case File LE/837/B2/TP (2) Adopted Unitary Development Plan (3) Revised Deposit Draft UDP (4) PPG 8: Telecommunications (5) PPG 15: Planning and the Historic Environment

Zoning Adopted UDP - Existing Use Revised UDP - Existing Use

CONSULTATIONS AND REPLIES ON ALL APPLICATIONS

English Heritage English Heritage has confirmed that these Classes of Listed Building application can be determined by the Council under agreed delegated arrangements.

Neighbours & Local Amenity Societies etc

Ladywell Society 1 Newland Cottages, 7, 23, 12, 14 & 26 Abbotswell Road 61, 65a, 73, 75, 79a, 48, 84, 94, 104, 136, F2 192 & 196 Adelaide Avenue 21, 25, 130 Albacore Crescent, 218a Algernon Road 13, 27, 67, 77, 24, 32 & 216 Algiers Road 7, 13, 19, 25, 4, 22, 26, 28, 32, 36 & 42 Amyruth Road 21, 39, 43, 45, 51, 55, 6, 14, 18-22, 50, 52, 60 & 68 Arthurdon Road 78 Bankhurst Road, 29, 31 & 26 Bearstead Rise 7, 43, 55, 83, 87, 95, 119, 129, 133, 153, 165, 26, 28, 30, 58, 66 & 92 Bexhill Road GFF 19 Blagdon Road, 5, 97a, 10, 12a, 24 & 42a Bradgate Road 8 Branscombe Street, 42 & 44 Brightling Road F1 & F23 39, 85, 48, 80, 150, 216 & 234 Grove, 22a Chalsey Road 5, 7, 13, 25, 27, 53, 73, 85- 97, 109-125, 129, 135, 139, 143-147, 157, 161-165, 169, 203, 6, 20, 24, 30, 32, 52, 54, 66, 70a, LF&UF 72, 74-100, 106, 112, 114, 124, 142, 146 & 160 Chudleigh Road Reg.Nos. 03/53599 & 03/53559 (cont’d) - 3 -

29 Cortis Road, SW15 49, 73, 81, 83, 91-95, 109, 115, 175, 2c, 26, 40, 42, 50, 72, 80 & 124 Road, 17, 45, 89, 50 & 80 Darfield Road 1-10 Ladywell Water Tower, 1-43, 49, 51, 55, 61, 103, Ladywell Lodge 139-141, 2-20, 30, 44, 64, Ladywell Centre & Ladywell Early Years Centre Dressington Avenue 19 & 27 Eastern Road 1, 3, 9-13, 19, 21, 25, 29, 37, 41, 47, 6, 8, 10 & 14 Elsiemaud Road 129a & 114 Embleton Road, 79 Ermine Road 21, 59, 71, 81, 83, 95, 97, 113, 28, 30-34, 40, 44, 58, 62, 68, 78-80, 84, 104 & 108 Ewhurst Road, 51 Felday Road 9, 19, 21, 25, 29-101, 177, 189, 201, 26, 40-62, 68 & 84 Foxborough Gardens 9, 13, 15, 25, 33, 37, 39, 4, 10, 14, 24, 30, 36, 44-48 & 56 Francemary Road 219 George Lane, 19, 23 & 27 Gillian Street, 15, 25, 27 & 18, Glynde Street 11, 15, 21, 39, 43, 45, 49, 57, 6, 8, 18, 20, 26, 28, 34 & Gordonbrock Primary School Gordonbrock Road, 3, 7 & 28 Greatfield Close, 45 Hawstead Road, 1, 9, 27, 29, 33, 16, 18, 28, 32a, 34, 36 & 48 Henryson Road c/o 61 Park, 31 Horsmonden Road, 122 Ivy Road 127a, 129, 135, 139, 153, 6, 158 & 166, Ladywell Road Microbiology Dept & Health & Safety Manager, Lewisham Hospital, Lewisham High Street, 13 Lion Close, 9, 13 & 16 Lindal Road 29 Keswick Court, 23, 65, 119, 149, 163, 26, 88, 118, 20, 88, 138, 142, 144, 150, 190, 192, 198, 206, 210, 214, 230, 250, 272 & 280 Malyons Road Crofton School, 3, 35, 47, 53, 59, 69, 71, 109, 173, 191, 197, 231, 233, 10b, 58, 64, 66, 72, 84, 108, 114, 124, 140, 148, 150 & 152 Manwood Road 9, 11, 15 & 17 Malyons Terrace, 9a, 6 & 20 Marnock Road, 37 Medusa Road 21a, 33, 51, 73, 6, 12, 16, 72, 74 & 92, Merritt Road, 13 & 15 Montague Avenue, 124 Nelgarde Road, 24 Norman Road, 8 & 36 Otford Crescent, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21, 6, 8, 12 & 22, Peppermead Square, 7, 14 & 16 Phoebeth Road 42 Ravensbourne Park Crescent, 7, 27, 20 & 46 Rushford Road 1-15, Alexandra Nursing Home 21 & 2-28, Rushey Mead 19, 21, 79, 97, 105, 113, 121, 133, 135, 8, 18, 48, 64, 68, 84, 94, 98, 118 & 156 Salehurst Road, 8, 20 & 32 Sevenoaks Road, 73, 139, 60, 84 & 124 Silvermere Road 8 Willowmere, 13, 49, 61, 12 & 78 Slagrove Place, 4th Floor Blue Star House, 234-244 Stocklwell Park Road, SW9, 179 TF 158 Tressillian Road, 16 Trilby Road, 23, 25, 6, 18, 36 & 48 Veda Road 1, 3 & TF, 3a, 7, 9a, 21, 25, 33 & 4, Vicars Hill, 24, 26 Westdown Road 28 Whitburn Road Notice on Site and Press Notice

38 letters and e-mails of objection have been received from 196 Adelaide Avenue, 13 Amyruth Road, 6, 14 & 60 Arthurdon Road, 6, 86, 94 & 147 Chudleigh Road, 109 Crofton Park Road, 19, 64 & 9 Ladywell Water Tower, Dressington Avenue, 19 Eastern Road, 11 Elsiemaud Road, 44, 81 & 96 Ewhurst Road, 9, 31, 52, 57 & 93 Foxborough Gardens, 14 & 46 Franemary Road, 39 Gordonbrock Road, 9 Lindal Road, 65, 198 & 250 Malyons Road, 9 Malyons Terrace, 64 Manwood Road, 68 Salehurst Road, 23 Veda Road, 36 Vicars Hill

203 standard letters of objection (individually signed) have also been received from 23 & 1 Newland Cottages Abbotswell Road, 65, 73 & 79A Adelaide Avenue, 21 Albacore Crescent, 218a Algernon Road, 13, 24 & 67 Algiers Road, 4, 7, 13, 22, 25, 28, 32 & 42 Amyruth Road, 20,39, 43, 45, 51, 60 & 68 Arthurdon Road, 78 Bankhurst Road, 29 Bearstead Rise, 7, 66, 83, 92, 95, 119, 129 & 133 Bexhill Road, GFF 19 Blagdon Road, 8 Branscombe Street, 42 & 44 Brightling Road, 85 Brockley Grove, 26, 32, 50, 53, 66, 70a, 78, 92, 93, 112, 125, 129, 146, 165 & 168 Chudleigh Road, 2c, 40, 49, 80, 81, 93, Reg.Nos. 03/53599 & 03/53559 (cont’d) - 4 -

115, 124 & 175 Crofton Park Road, 45 & 50 Darfield Road, 7, 37, 44 & 64 Dressington Avenue, 27 Eastern Road, 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 21, 25, 29, 31, 37 & 41 Elsiemaud Road, 114 & 129aq Embleton Road, 79 Ermine Road, 21, 32, 58, 59, 62, 68, 84, 97, 108 & 113 Ewhurst Road, 51 Fleday Road, 25, 26, 37, 39, 42, 48, 52, 54, 61, 63, 65, 68, 69, 71, 84, 93 & 189 Foxborough Gardens, 9, 13, 14, 24, 25, 30, 33, 37, 39, 44, 48 & 56 Francemary Road, 23 & 27 Gillian Street, 27 Glynde Street, 6, 8, 15, 21, 28, 45 & 49 Gordonbrock Road, 3 & 28 Greatfield Close, 16, 18, 27, 28, 29, 33 & 35 Henryson Road, 139 Ladywell Road, 16 Lindal Road, 13 Lion Close, 29 Keswick Court & 26, 65, 88, 138, 214 & 272 Malyons Road , 9 & 17 Malyons Terrace, 3, 35, 47, 53, 59, 64, 66, 69, 71, 84, 109, 114, 124, 152, 163 & 197 Manwood Road, 6 Marnock Road, 6 & 16 Merritt Road, 13 Montague Avenue, 36 Otford Crescent, 15, 17 & 22 Peppermead Square, 18, 48, 84, 121, 133 & 135 Salehurst Road, 8 Sevenoaks Road, 12 & 13 Slagrove Road, 1, 3a, 25 & 33 Vicars Hill, 18 Veda Road and 24 Westwood Road along with 7 standard letters received from pupils of Crofton Park School.

The main grounds of objection are as follows:-

(1) The installations are unnecessary with the telecommunication operators failing to demonstrate need and demand for the proposed installation. Existing reception appears satisfactory.

(2) Unsuitable location due to the close proximity of residential dwellings, schools, Lewisham Hospital and a day care centre.

(3) Potential health risk as a consequence of the installation. 3G type systems should be put on hold until testing has categorically proven that there is no health risk. There is specific concern for individuals with weakened immune systems.

(4) Detrimental impact on local property prices.

(5) The installation will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the listed building.

(6) The installation would be incompatible with Lewisham Council’s Commitment to Residents, by ignoring the wishes of the community and in breach of its duty of care.

(7) The view of the building from Eastern Road would be affected since the upper part of the Tower is clearly visible from neighbouring properties.

(8) Such landmarks as the Water Tower have increased importance in a Borough that has few buildings of historic and/or architectural interest and the use of the building for such installations would degrade its appearance.

(9) The installation would mean a further departure from the building’s original use and is not essential to the building’s preservation.

(Letters are available to Members)

Amenity Societies’ Panel

No objection. The proposed location within the Tower represents a great improvement over the previous application. There were queries over whether the necessary ICNIRP Certificate had been provided by the applicant. Reg.Nos. 03/53599 & 03/53559 (cont’d) - 5 -

Environmental Health

Environmental Health considers the installation to be unobjectionable in principle, subject to the installation being in conformity to standards adopted by the National Radiological Protection Board and the International Commission Non-Ionising Protection Guidelines (ICNIRP) on limiting exposure to electromagnetic radiation, or such higher standards as may be approved by the Government and policed by the Health and Safety Executive.

No noise or vibration nuisance to be caused by the plant and machinery to local residents.

As this application is an identical submission to that which was determined by the Council earlier in the year and was subject to full public consultation (including a local meeting), it was considered that a further local meeting was not necessary in this particular case.

OBSERVATIONS

Property/Site Description

Ladywell Water Tower is a Grade II Listed Building situated on the west side of Dressington Avenue, approximately 50 metres to the south of its junction with Chudleigh Road. To the west are the rear gardens of residential properties fronting Foxborough Gardens and to the north are the rear gardens of residential properties fronting Chudleigh Road.

The listed building was refurbished during the late 1990s (which also involved the erection of a two storey block of flats with a walkway link to the tower structure). The site is currently in residential use. The ground and first floor of the tower itself is currently in use as a 1 bed maisonette. The upper floors of the tower are currently unused. The tower is approximately 31 metres in height and is a landmark building, dominating the skyline.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, comprising a mixture of two storey terraces and semi-detached properties. Gordonbrock School is situated approximately 250 metres to the north and the Alexander Nursing Home is situated approximately 90 metres to the east.

Planning History

In November 1980, planning permission was granted for the alteration and conversion of the tower to provide a craft workshop, studio and residential accommodation. This development was not commenced.

In 1981 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the structure and the laying out of the site as amenity space for the adjacent Ladywell Lodge Housing Site.

In 1987 planning permission was granted to convert the tower to provide 3 maisonettes and two studio units with access off Foxborough Gardens. This permission was not implemented.

In September 1990, planning permission was refused for the alterations and conversion of the lower part of the tower, together with the erection of a 4 storey building adjacent to the tower to provide 2 two bed and 12 one bed flats with associated car parking. The building was listed in November 1990. Reg.Nos. 03/53599 & 03/53559 (cont’d) - 6 -

In 1993 planning permission and listed building consent were granted for the conversion of the tower structure to provide a 1 bed maisonette (ground and first floor) with office and plant rooms above, the construction of an aerial mast on the roof and the erection of a 2 storey building and link bridge to provide 4 one bed flats along with the provision of 6 car parking spaces with access off Dressington Avenue.

These grants of planning permission and listed building consent were renewed in December 1998.

In April 2001 planning permission and listed building consent were granted for an almost identical form of development to that previously granted, but with an additional flat within the roof void of the proposed two storey block. Apart from the installation of the approved lattice aerial mast (which was to be sited on the roof of the tower) this development has been completed with all residential units occupied.

In April 2003 planning permission and listed building consent were refused in respect of the installation of six antennae and equipment cabin at Ladywell Water Tower - submitted by Vodaphone (DC/02/51071 and 51072). The reasons for refusal were as follows:-

Listed Building Application

“The proposed installation and associated alterations to the listed building would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the listed building, contrary to Policies BLT.ENV 8: Telecommunications and BLT.ENV 13: Listed Buildings in the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and URB 10 Masts, Satellite Dishes and Telecommunications Equipment and URB 17 Preserving Listed Buildings in the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (August 2001).”

Planning Application

“The Council is not satisfied that sufficient detail has been submitted to demonstrate that the risks to health from the proposed installations would be within acceptable limits, with particular reference to the nearby nursery and primary school, taking account of the cumulative effects of existing telecommunications locally. Furthermore, the proposed installation and associated alterations to the listed building would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the listed building, contrary to Policies BLT.ENV 8: Telecommunications and BLT.ENV 13: Listed Buildings in the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and URB 10: Masts, Satellite Dishes and Telecommunications Equipment and URB 17: Preserving Listed Buildings in the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (August 2001).”

At the same time, the Council resolved that had the Council not received an appeal against the non determination of applications for listed building consent and planning permission (in respect of the installation of a radio base station incorporating 1 H3G panel antenna and a H3G dish antenna on the Ladwell Water Tower and the installation of 2 H3G panel antennae and associated equipment on the adjacent residential building - submitted by Hutchinson 3G), permission/consent would have been refused for identical reasons as above.

The subsequent appeal was allowed by letter dated 24 June 2003. A copy of this appeal decision is a material consideration in respect of these current applications and is attached as Appendix 1 to this report. Reg.Nos. 03/53599 & 03/53559 (cont’d) - 7 -

Present Applications

These applications propose the installation of 6 antennas to be located within the dormer windows located at roof level of the listed building. All four dormer windows would be affected, with two antennas installed on the north east face; two antennas installed on the south east face; one antenna on the south west face and one other installed on the north west face. The existing window panels would be removed and the antenna would be fixed to supporting poles located within the water tower. It is proposed to conceal the antenna from view by using GRP shrouds, which would be fixed to the inside of the window frames. The shrouds would project 0.3 metres beyond the window but would replicate the design of the original window opening. Plant and equipment would be accommodated at third floor level.

The applicant (Vodafone) has confirmed that the installation would comply with the ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines.

Investigation of Alternative Sites

The applicant’s agent has submitted evidence as to the level of investigation undertaken within the Ladywell area, which confirms that several sites were investigated prior to the nomination of Ladywell Water Tower. The letter argues that the predominance of two storey properties limits the scope for roof top installations.

The applicant has confirmed that they considered the suitability of Adhesive Specialities - 59 Ladywell Road, 87-89 Ladywell Road, Ladywell Tavern and Masons Restaurant Ladywell Road. All these sites were discounted, as they are all situated in a low lying part of Ladywell and would not provide sufficient coverage. A number of property owners were also not happy with the principle of such installations on their building. The applicant concluded that the only option for them would have been the erection of a monopole, which was discounted on grounds of visual amenity.

The applicant also considered Dogs Stadium but have confirmed that this would not provide sufficient coverage towards the Crofton Park area. They have argued that additional sites would be needed to meet this shortfall, which would lead to a proliferation of base stations.

They have also confirmed that other sites have included Lewisham University Hospital, Wearside Service Centre Wearside Road, 15 Whitburn Road, Ladywell Station, The Brockley Jack, St Hilda’s Church and the Catholic Bookshop (296 Brockley Road). In all these cases, the applicant has confirmed that telecommunications coverage would not be sufficient within the target area, which would place further pressure for additional antenna installations within the Ladywell Area.

Policy Context

Central Government Guidance

Central Government Guidance governing telecommunications development is contained within PPG8, which was published in August 2001. The Government’s policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. The Guidance also confirms that the Government has a responsibility for protecting public health. Reg.Nos. 03/53599 & 03/53559 (cont’d) - 8 -

In order to minimise visual intrusion, the Government attaches considerable importance to keeping down the numbers of masts and the sharing of masts is strongly encouraged. It stresses however that authorities need to consider the cumulative impact upon the environment.

The Guidance stresses that authorities and operators should use sympathetic design and camouflage to minimise the impact of the installation (the use of screening and planting).

The Guidance confirms that health impact represents, in principle, a material planning consideration. However, the Guidance states that it is the Government’s firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. In the Government’s view, if a proposed mobile base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines, it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission to consider further the health aspects and concerns.

The Supporting Guidance refers to the general precautionary approach to such development (advocated by the Stewart Report) but states that local planning authorities should not implement their own precautionary policies (by way of imposing a ban or moratorium on new telecommunications development).

The Supporting Guidance (attached to PPG 8) covers installations on listed buildings and refers to PPG 15 “Planning and the Historic Environment” which provides guidance as to the most appropriate approaches to listed building applications.

Adopted Unitary Development Plan

Policy BLT.ENV 8: Telecommunations confirms that in making decisions on telecommunications development, the Council will need to be satisfied (inter alia) that the siting and external appearance of apparatus has been designed to minimise the impact of such apparatus and that the installation has been sited so as to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building.

Policy BLT.ENV 13: Listed Buildings seeks to preserve and enhance listed buildings in the Borough and will only grant consent for alterations to listed buildings which relate sensitively in terms of materials, style and craftsmanship to the important characteristics (both internal and external) of the original building.

Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan

Policy URB 10 Masts, Satellite Dishes and Telecommunications Equipment confirms that telecommunications equipment should be designed and sited where they will have the least detrimental impact (especially in the case of listed buildings and sites within Conservation Areas). Before providing free-standing masts, a statement should be submitted providing evidence as to why an antenna could not be sited on an existing building. In the case of mast sharing, a statement should be made as to whether additional apparatus could be accommodated.

Policy URB 17 Preserving Listed Buildings deals with listed building works and states that the Council will only grant consent for alterations to listed buildings which relate sensitively in terms of materials, style and craftsmanship to the important characteristics (both internal and external) of the original building. Reg.Nos. 03/53599 & 03/53559 (cont’d) - 9 -

Planning Considerations

These applications need to be viewed in the light of the Government’s policy to facilitate new and existing forms of telecommunications whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. The planning considerations in this particular situation relate therefore to the impact of the telecommunications installation on the character and appearance of the listed building and an assessment of public health issues. Whilst identical applications for planning permission and listed building consent have previously been refused, the recent appeal decision in respect of a previously refused Hutchinson 3G installation is an important material consideration in this case.

Site Search and Opportunities for Mast Sharing

Prior to identifying the Ladywell Water Tower as a suitable site for telecommunications, both applicants undertook a site search for alternative locations. The applicants most recent evidence further clarifies the position and as a consequence and subject to the installations being acceptable in listed building terms, officers are satisfied that the Ladywell Water Tower is the best option to ensure coverage within the target area. PPG 8 and the adopted and emerging development plans encourage telecommunications systems operators to site installations on existing buildings, rather than on free-standing masts and this general approach should be welcomed in principle.

Impact on the Listed Building

The proposed installation has taken account of the important features of the listed building and the requirement to conceal and camouflage the proposed installations.

Whilst the GRP shrouds would project beyond the dormer window openings, the structures would maintain the existing window proportions. In view of the overall size and visual presence of the tower, these minor changes would also have minimal impact on the architectural integrity of the listed building.

Both the cambered window openings and the gabled dormers with semi-circular openings are mentioned in the detailed listing description. However, officers are satisfied that the replacement window feature and the dormer window shrouds would not significantly despoil the architectural integrity of the listed building.

The Planning Inspector for the Hutchinson 3G proposals appeared to be less concerned about the impact of high level changes to the listed building.

“The removal of the window and its replacement by a replica in GRP is of more concern but the alteration would be reversible should the equipment eventually become redundant. The window is, I consider, situated high enough up in the building to prevent the change from being readily noticeable from ground level or nearby public viewpoints. For these reasons, I can find no objections strong enough to warrant the refusal of listed building consent and no harm sufficient to conflict with UDP policies and national planning guidance intended to preserve listed buildings and their settings.”

In this particular case, the dormers are located over 27 metres above ground level and whilst they would project 300 mm beyond the face of the window, they would be barely noticeable, when viewed in the context of the bulk, height and landmark presence of the Ladywell Water Tower. Reg.Nos. 03/53599 & 03/53559 (cont’d) - 10 -

Health Impacts

Many of the third parties have raised concerns over the potential health impacts of the proposed installations. This report has fully clarified the level of consideration to be afforded to such issues. In view of the installations’ compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure and irrespective of any fear of health impacts, it is clear that refusals of planning permission and listed building consent in respect of these two proposed installations could not be sustained.

The Planning Inspector covered health considerations in some depth. Whilst she was not able to comment on the planning merits of the proposed Vodaphone installation, she noted that both operators (Vodaphone and Hutchinson 3G) confirmed that the cumulative emissions from the proposed equipment meet the ICNIRP guidelines. She also made specific reference to PPG 8 and the statement that if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, it should not be necessary for a local planning authority to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them. She also referred to the level of consultation that had taken place with local residents and a local nursery. Her conclusions on this issue are detailed in paragraphs 18 and 19 and are reproduced below:

“18. The appellants have produced calculations to demonstrate that the emission levels at the most sensitive locations in proximity to the appeal site would not give cause for concern, when judged against the ICNIRP guidelines. Even the worst case would be over 7,200 times below the recommended levels. Even allowing for the effect of any other possible nearby existing installations, I consider it extremely unlikely that emissions in the area covered by the proposed equipment would, even cumulatively, exceed the recommended levels.

19. In these circumstances, it is my view that it is not necessary to consider further the health issues in relation to the emissions from the proposed development. It seems to me that the Council has been given all the information required by PPG 8 and the latest Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Installations issued by the Government that is needed to comply with the ‘precautionary approach’ advocated by the Stewart Report and that the appellants have carried out their recommended consultation procedures.”

In this context, it is clear that the health impacts (including indirect health effects) have been adequately dealt with and there is no basis to refuse planning permission and listed building consent on these grounds. The Planning Inspector also considered the perceived health risk of the Hutchinson 3G proposal would be low, as the installation would be discreetly positioned and designed to blend in with its surroundings, which would minimise the public perception of the development. The same would apply in the case of the current proposed installation.

Consultations

Residents concerns have been considered elsewhere in this report. There has been some concern from residents regarding the impact of the proposed installation on general property prices. However, PPG 8 confirms that the material question is not whether a particular development would cause financial loss to owners and occupiers but whether the proposal would have a detrimental affect on the locality generally and on the amenities to be protected. Reg.Nos. 03/53599 & 03/53559 (cont’d) - 11 -

Conclusion

The applicant has worked hard to screen and camouflage the proposed installation and officers are satisfied that the architectural integrity of the listed building would be maintained. Conditions are recommended to ensure that the detailed alteration works (the window replacement and the colour of the GRP shrouds) are carried out sensitively.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the potential health impacts are important issues for local residents, compliance with the ICNIRP Guidelines significantly limits the weight to be afforded to such considerations.

The recent appeal decision into the Hutchinson 3G proposals has clarified the position as regards the health impact of such installations. Following on from this, it is clear that there is no basis to refuse planning permission and/or listed building consent for the current proposed installation.

RECOMMENDATION (A) GRANT LISTED BUILDING CONSENT in respect of Application Nos. DC/03/53599 subject to the following condition:-

Details of the colour and texture of the GRP shroud (incorporated as part of the modified roof top dormer window openings) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the works. The works shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter.

Reason

To ensure that the proposed works are in keeping with the listed building, to safeguard its special architectural or historic character and to comply with Policy BLT.ENV 13: Listed Buildings in the Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan and URB 17 Preserving Listed Buildings in the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (August 2001).

RECOMMENDATION (B) GRANT PERMISSION in respect of Application Nos. DC/03/53559 subject to the following condition:-

Details of the colour and texture of the GRP shroud (incorporated as part of the modified roof top dormer window openings) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the works. The works shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter.

Reason

To ensure that the proposed works are in keeping with the listed building, to safeguard its special architectural or historic character and to comply with Policy BLT.ENV 13: Listed Buildings in the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and URB 17 Preserving Listed Buildings in the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (August 2001).