The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House Inquiry opened on 22 October 2008 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN 0117 372 6372 by Martin Pike BA MA MRTPI email:[email protected] ov.uk Decision date: an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 26 May 2010 Appeal Ref: APP/J9497/A/08/2064768 The Copse, Glebe Farm, Widecombe-in-the-Moor, Devon TQ13 7TR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Airwave Solutions Ltd against the decision of Dartmoor National Park Authority. • The application Ref: 0452/07, dated 1 June 2007, was refused by notice dated 11 September 2007. • The development proposed is a telecommunications installation comprising replica telegraph pole and associated ancillary development. DECISION 1. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for a telecommunications installation comprising replica telegraph pole and associated ancillary development at The Copse, Glebe Farm, Widecombe-in-the-Moor, Devon in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 0452/07, dated 1 June 2007, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: P/DAC169G/GEN/001/A P/DAC169G/GEN/003/C P/DAC169G/GEN/004/C 01-384-402 01-384-403. 3) Notwithstanding the details of the submitted application, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the external facing materials and colour of the mast, equipment cabinet and any other ancillary apparatus shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved external facing materials and colours. Thereafter the mast and shroud shall be retained in a dark brown colour. 4) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the proposed landscaping and planting scheme shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The landscaping and planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme within 12 months of the commencement of the development, or such longer period as the local planning authority shall specify in writing. The landscaping Appeal Decision APP/J9497/A/08/2064768 and planting shall be maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of the commencement of the development, such maintenance to include the replacement of any trees or shrubs that die or are removed. 5) Any necessary cables to the site shall be concealed underground. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Main Inquiry, October 2008 – January 2009 2. At the main inquiry an application for costs was made by Airwave Solutions Ltd against Dartmoor National Park Authority; a second application was made by Dartmoor National Park Authority against Airwave Solutions Ltd. These applications are the subject of separate Decisions. 3. The site address as stated on the application and appeal forms is “Copse area, Coombe, Widecombe-in-the-Moor”. It became apparent during the main inquiry that the site was part of Glebe Farm, which was agreed by the main parties to be a more accurate and identifiable address than “Coombe”. I have amended the site address accordingly. Position of local planning authority and nature of evidence 4. A few days before the inquiry opened, the appellant submitted to Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) a series of supplementary and rebuttal proofs of evidence. 1 New technical material contained within these proofs, relating to an increase in the mast height necessary to give adequate coverage from alternative sites, caused DNPA to re-evaluate its case. As a consequence of this new evidence, DNPA decided not to contest the appeal. It kept a watching brief on the proceedings, participated in the discussions about procedural matters, conditions and the section 106 obligation (submitted by the appellant at the opening of the inquiry), and was involved in the costs applications. 5. As a result of the withdrawal of DNPA from the inquiry, the case in opposition to the proposal was put by third party objectors, mostly local residents. When the inquiry opened they (like me) had not seen the appellant’s supplementary and rebuttal proofs. Because of the amount of new information that had been provided, it was clear that a lengthy adjournment would be necessary to allow time for the new information to be assimilated and responses prepared. These responses and further rebuttals were received (for the most part) in accordance with a timetable I set out. All parties had the opportunity to make their cases in full at the inquiry, which then sat for 3 days on 21-23 January 2009. I carried out accompanied visits to the site and an extensive tract of surrounding countryside on 22-23 October 2008 and 27 January 2009. 6. Two matters arose regarding the weight to be given to evidence. The first concerns the status of the written proofs of evidence submitted by witnesses who were to have presented the DNPA case at the inquiry. This was the subject of considerable discussion: ultimately DNPA conceded that the proofs were to be withdrawn. Accordingly, while they remain as inquiry documents because they were properly submitted before the inquiry and record the 1 These were not sent to the Planning Inspectorate because the appellant surmised that they would have been returned as being outside the timetable for submission. 2 Appeal Decision APP/J9497/A/08/2064768 authority’s position at that time, I have not given this evidence any weight in my appeal decision. The same applies to the revised proofs submitted on 21 January before DNPA withdrew its evidence. The second matter concerns the representations of third parties. Many local residents indicated that they were not willing to be cross-examined by the appellant’s advocate. It follows that such evidence carries less weight than if it had been tested by cross examination; nevertheless, it remains evidence which I have taken into account and given some weight in reaching my decision. Site visit and accuracy of plans 7. At the site visit on 27 January 2009, which took place after the inquiry had closed, a local resident queried whether the equipment cabinet could be positioned as shown on the amended site plan (drawing P/DAC169G/GEN/ 002/B). This plan shows the ‘track’2 which provides access through the copse, curving round the proposed stone bank that is intended to shield the cabinet from view. I subsequently compared the site plan with the surveyed section 106 plan (drawing SJA TMP 01 Rev B), which suggested that (1) the ‘track’ runs from the field gate at a more acute angle, and with less of a bend, than is shown on the site plan, and (2) the line and/or the width of the existing Devon bank is not accurately shown on the site plan. From my own observations on the site visit, it was apparent that the site plan was not accurate and that the development could not be built as shown on drawing P/DAC169G/GEN/002/B. 8. Based on my observations, I felt that any adjustments necessary to accommodate the cabinet would be minor and would not have a significant impact on the issues debated at the inquiry. Nevertheless, I considered that it was important to have an accurate site plan available before any development is carried out. Consequently in February 2009 I sought the views of the main parties on the possibility of imposing an additional condition on the planning permission which would require the appellant to submit an accurate site plan to DNPA for its approval before any works commenced. The appellant and DNPA agreed that this would be an appropriate way to proceed. The local residents did not, making three main points: (a) If the scheme cannot be implemented as originally proposed it should simply be rejected. (b) It is unclear whether or not the scheme as amended would be materially different to that which was applied for. (c) It is not possible to say whether the amended layout would have a material impact on the issues debated at the inquiry. 9. Having regard to the concerns of local residents, I decided that it was necessary to re-open the inquiry so that the arguments for and against acceptance of an amended site plan could be fully examined. To facilitate a meaningful debate about the extent of the changes required to the site layout, I asked the appellant to prepare and submit an amended site layout plan before the inquiry re-opened. This is drawing 01-384-402; an additional drawing, 01-384-403, gives a section through site. 2 The word ‘track’ is in parentheses because there was a dispute at the inquiry about its existence as a track in the commonly accepted use of the word. I deal with this matter later in my decision. 3 Appeal Decision APP/J9497/A/08/2064768 Re-opened inquiry, October 2009 – March 2010 10. At the re-opened inquiry, applications for costs were made by Airwave Solutions Ltd against Dartmoor National Park Authority, by Dartmoor National Park Authority against Airwave Solutions Ltd, and by Mr Casey on behalf of local residents against Airwave Solutions Ltd. These applications are the subject of separate Decisions. Amended plans 11. The re-opened inquiry sat on 28-29 October 2009 and 24-25 March 2010. I made an accompanied visit to the site on 28 October 2009 at which the amended location of the proposed equipment cabinet (as shown on drawings 01-384-402 and 01-384-403) was viewed, and a comparison was made with the assumed location of the cabinet as shown on the original drawings – primarily P/DAC169G/GEN/002/B.