OFFICER REPORT
1. SUMMARY
1.1 An assessment has been made as to whether
the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority is required for
the siting and appearance of the proposed development which
comprises the installation of a 18m high Phase 8 monopole with a
wraparound cabinet and associated ancillary works.
1.2As the proposal is for the installation of
a new mast and associated development, it must be assessed on its
own merits against the relevant criteria and it is concluded that
prior approval is required. It is recommended that prior approval
is granted as the siting and appearance of the proposed development
would not result in unacceptable impacts to the residential
amenities of neighbouring dwellings, the character of the area or
result in highway safety implications.
|
RECOMMENDATION
|
|
Prior approval
is required and prior approval is granted subject to the
recommendation set out in Section 12 of this report.
|
2. REASON FOR REPORTING APPLICATION TO
COMMITTEE
2.1 The application has been submitted under the prior approval
procedure and therefore requires determination within 56 days.
3. PLANNING STATUS AND SITE DESCRITPION
|
PLANNING STATUS
|
|
Within the settlement boundary
|
3.1 The proposed
telecommunications installation is proposed to be sited on an area
of soft landscaping located between a footpath and the highway on
Ringmead. There is an existing hedge which runs alongside the
footpath and towards the highway boundary are existing trees.
3.2 The
immediate surrounding area is residential, comprising a mix of
bungalows and two storey dwellings.
4. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
4.1 There is no
relevant planning history relating to the site.
5. PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
APPARATUS
5.1 Part 16 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England)
Order 2015 (as amended) covers development by electronic
communications code operators.
5.2 Class A
permitted development is:
Development by or on behalf of an electronic communications code
operator for the purpose of the operator’s electronic
communications network in, on, over or under land controlled by
that operator or in accordance with the electronic communications
code, consisting of—
(a) the installation, alteration or replacement of any electronic
communications apparatus,
(b) the use of land in an emergency for a period not exceeding 18
months to station and operate moveable electronic communications
apparatus required for the replacement of unserviceable electronic
communications apparatus, including the provision of moveable
structures on the land for the purposes of that use, or
(c) development ancillary to radio equipment housing.
5.3 The proposed
18m high monopole with a wraparound cabinet and 3no. cabinets would
constitute the installation of electronic communications apparatus
as set out above and be classed as "ground based equipment".
5.4 The caveats
relating to ground-based equipment are set out at A.1 (1) of the
GPDO 2015 (as amended) which states:
Development consisting of the installation, alteration or
replacement of electronic communications apparatus (other than on a
building) is not permitted by Class A (a) if…
(c) in the case of the
installation of a mast, the mast, excluding any antenna, would
exceed a height of—
(i) 25 metres above
ground level on unprotected land; or
(ii) 20 metres above
ground level on article 2(3) land or land which is on a
highway;
5.5 The proposed
mast at a height of 18m would be sited on unprotected land (that is
land that is not article 2(3) land or highway land) and would
satisfy the above caveats. As such, the proposal would be
considered permitted development, subject to the following
conditions set out at A.2 (3) of the GPDO 2015 (as amended):
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), Class A development…
(c) on unprotected land where that development consists
of—
(i) the installation of a mast…
is permitted subject, except in case of emergency (in which case
only paragraph A.3(12) applies), to the conditions set out in
paragraph A.3 (prior approval).
5.6 The proposal
consists of the installation of a mast with a wraparound cabinet, and proposed cabinets
which satisfies the criteria for permitted development set out in
Class A, Part 16 of the GPDO 2015 (as amended). As such, the
developer must apply to the Local Planning Authority for
determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority
will be required as to the siting and appearance of the
development, as set out under paragraph (4) A.3 of Class A, Part
16, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
5.7 The Code of
Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (November
2016) provides some guidance as to what matters can be considered
relating to siting and appearance. Siting can include existence of
topographical features and natural vegetation, impact on skyline,
site in relation to existing masts, structures and buildings.
Design can include height in relation to surrounding area,
appearance of the installation, material, colouration.
5.8 The Council
has 56 days in which to consider RTD applications. If no decision
is made within the timeframe (or within an agreed extension of
time), the application will be deemed as approved.
5..9 The 3no. proposed cabinets due to their size do not require
prior approval as set out under paragraph A.3 of Class A, Part 16,
Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
5.10 The proposed development due to its siting
would not interfere with highway sightlines, or access for road
users, and thus would not create a highway safety concern. The
development would therefore not impact upon highway safety in
accordance with Article 3, paragraph 6 of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as
amended) which states that:-
(6) The permission granted by
Schedule 2 does not, except in relation to development permitted by
Classes A, B, D and E of Part 9 and Class A of Part 18 of that
Schedule, authorise any development which requires or involves the
formation, laying out or material widening of a means of access to
an existing highway which is a trunk road or classified road, or
creates an obstruction to the view of persons using any highway
used by vehicular traffic, so as to be likely to cause danger to
such persons.
6. THE PROPOSAL
6.1 This is
an application for determination as to
whether the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority will be
required for the siting and appearance of electronic communications
apparatus in accordance with Class A of Part 16 Schedule 2 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England)
Order 2015 (as amended). As the proposal is for the installation of
a new mast and cabinets, it is considered that prior approval is
required. An assessment is required therefore as to the
acceptability of the siting and appearance of the proposal.
6.2 The proposal
comprises the installation of a 18m high Phase 8 monopole with a
wraparound cabinet at the base, and 3no. additional cabinets.
6.3 The proposed
mast would provide new 5G coverage for the H3G LTE (Three)
network.
6.4 The
applicant has submitted a certificate, which confirms that the
proposed mast meets ICNIRP (International Commission on
Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines.
Technical justification
6.5 The
supporting information submitted as part of the application
states:
- There is a
requirement to upgrade the UK H3G (Three) network to provide
improved coverage and capacity, most notably in relation to 5G
services.
- Three are in the
process of building out the UK’s fastest 5G network. Three
has 140MHz of 5G spectrum (and 100MHz of it contiguous), which
means the service will be much faster and able to handle more
data.
- The site is
required to provide new 5G coverage for H3G LTE in order to improve
coverage in the RG12 area of Bracknell. The cell search areas for
5G are extremely constrained with a typical cell radius of
approximately 50m meaning that it would not be feasible to site the
column outside of this locale.
- To bring this new
technology to the wider population H3G will need to provide a mix
of upgrades to existing sites and the building of new sites. New
sites will be needed for many reasons, including that the higher
radio frequencies used for 5G do not travel as far as those
frequencies currently in use and that sometimes not all existing
sites can be upgraded.
- 5G and the network
services it provides, means the equipment and antennas required are
quite different to the previous, and existing, service
requirements. In particular, the nature of the antennas, and the
separation required from other items of associated equipment, is
such that it cannot utilise some existing structures that provide
an installation for another operator, most notably in a street
works or highways environment
- The 5G antennas
are some 3 times as heavy as previous antennas, while the
associated Remote Radio Units also now need to be placed at the top
of the pole, thus many street works designs are no longer
structurally capable of hosting all the equipment of 2
operators
- The height of the
pole has been kept down to the absolute minimum capable of
providing the required essential new 5G coverage.
|
- The mast must be
in a position where it can be physically constructed. Existing
underground services continue to be a significant obstacle to the
deployment of the rollout of 5G.
- Mobile phone base
stations operate on a low power and base stations therefore need to
be located in the areas they are required to serve. Increasingly,
people are using their mobile devices in their homes which means
base stations need to be located in, or close to, residential
areas.
- Base stations also
have to fit in with the existing network. Sites have to form a
patchwork of coverage cells with each cell overlapping to a limited
degree with surrounding base stations to provide continuous network
cover as users move from one cell to the other. However, if this
overlap is too great, unacceptable interference is created between
the two cells.
|
Site selection process
6.6Para 115 of
the NPPF states that "applications for electronic communications
development (including applications for prior approval) should be
supported by the necessary evidence to justify the proposed
development. This should include…for a new mast or base
station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility
of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other
structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when
operational, International Commission guidelines will be met".
6.7 9
alternative sites (shown above) have been considered and discounted
as part of the search process for a new base station on Ringmead
and Great Hollands Road. The sites were discounted by the operator
for reasons including proximity to residential dwellings;
obstruction caused by trees; insufficient pavement width; being
close to a pedestrian crossing; on a cycle lane or unknown scarring
on a pavement.
7. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
Bracknell
Town Council
7.1 Any comments
received will be reported in the supplementary report.
Other
representations
7.2 Any comments
received will be reported in the supplementary report.
8. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Highways
Officer
8.1 No
objection.
9. MAIN POLICIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO
DECISION
9.1 The key policies and guidance applying to the
site and the associated policies are:
|
|
Development Plan
|
NPPF
|
|
Design
|
Saved policy EN20 of BFBLP CS7 of the CSDPD
|
Consistent
|
|
Residential amenity
|
‘Saved’ policies EN20 and EN25 of the
BFBLP
|
Consistent
|
|
Highway Safety
|
‘Saved’ policy M9 of the BFBLP
CS23 of
the CSDPD
|
Consistent
|
|
Trees
|
Saved Policy EN1 of the BFBLP,
CS1 of the CSDPD
|
Consistent
|
|
Telecommunications development
|
Saved Policy SC4 of BFBLP
|
Consistent
|
|
Other publications
|
|
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
2019
Community
Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule (CIL)
|
- PLANNING
CONSIDERATIONS
10.1 The key issues for consideration relating
to the proposed mast and cabinets is whether the siting and
appearance of the development is acceptable.
i. Principle
of development
10.2 The principle of development is
established by the GPDO 2015 (as amended). Consideration is given
to any policies in the development plan or the NPPF only in so far
as they are relevant to matters of siting and appearance as set out
at paragraphs A.2 and A.3 of Class A, Part 16, Schedule 2 of the
GPDO 2015 (as amended).
10.3 Under the prior approval process, the LPA
has 56 days to make and notify its determination on whether prior
approval is required as to siting and appearance of the proposed
development and to notify the applicant of the decision to give or
refuse such approval under Class A, Part 16, Schedule 2 of the GPDO
2015 (as amended).
10.4 There are
also local and national policies relating to telecommunications
development which are material considerations.
10.5 Policy SC4
of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan states: "Planning
permission for network telecommunications development will be
permitted provided that... There is no reasonable possibility of
erecting antennas in an existing building or structure or of
sharing facilities...The development must be sited so as to
minimise its visual impact, subject to technical and operational
considerations."
10.6 Section 10
of the NPPF refers to supporting high quality communications. Para
112 states "advanced, high quality and reliable communications
infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social
well-being. Planning policies and decisions should support the
expansion of electronic communications networks, including next
generation mobile technology (such as 5G)".
10.7 Para 113
states "the number of radio and electronic communications mast, and
the sites for such installations, should be kept to a minimum
consistent with the needs of consumers, the efficient operation of
the network. Where new sites are required (such as for new 5G
networks, or for connected transport and smart city applications),
equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where
appropriate".
10.8 In May 2021,
the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport informed Local
Authorities of the importance of digital connectivity to enable
people to stay connected and businesses to grow, especially with
the COVID-19 pandemic which has highlighted how important it is to
have access to reliable, high quality mobile connectivity. The
Government is committed to extending mobile network coverage across
the UK, including 5G and the correspondence highlights the key role
that the planning system plays in delivering the necessary
infrastructure.
10.9 The
proposed mast would provide 5G coverage. Both local and national
planning policies supports the expansion of electronic
communications networks, including next generation mobile
technology such as 5G.
ii. Residential amenity
10.10 The
proposed mast would be sited 7.6m from the side/rear elevation at
no. 1 Turnberry and 14.9m from the rear elevation of no. 1 Birkdale
to the south-west, which are the closest residential
dwellings. It is acknowledged that the proposed mast would be
located close to these existing dwellings and would therefore
appear visible to the occupiers when viewed from the rear
elevations and rear gardens of the dwellings. However, due to the
design of the mast, it would be a slimline structure, with the pole
ranging in width between 0.3m and 0.4m, increasing to 0.7m on the
top with the antennas, viewed against a backdrop of trees, it would
not appear so unduly prominent and overbearing to the closest
adjoining residential dwellings as to warrant refusal of the
application.
10.11 The
proposed mast would be sited some 26m from the side/rear elevations
of dwellings at Underwood to the east and some 42m from further
dwellings to the east/south-east at Ullswater. Given these
separation distance, with the highway at Ringmead as an intervening
feature in-between, along with the presence of existing trees which
would provide some screening to the proposed mast, it would not
appear unduly intrusive to the detriment of the occupiers of
dwellings at Underwood or Ullswater.
10.12 The mast meets the ICNIRP guidelines
for public exposure (health implications are considered further
under the heading - v. Health).
10.13 As such,
the siting and appearance of the proposed development would not be
considered to significantly affect the residential amenities of
neighbouring occupiers and would be in accordance with Saved Policy
EN20 of the BFBLP and the NPPF.
iii. Impact on character and appearance of surrounding area
10.14 The
proposed mast and cabinets would be located on an area of soft
landscaping between a footpath and the highway on Ringmead to the
east. The proposed mast would cause some visual harm to the
area due to its height and siting. However, this degree of harm is
not considered unacceptable. The proposed mast would be viewed in
the context of surrounding vertical street furniture, including
streetlight columns and highway signage. There are also adjoining
trees which would provide some screening to the development. The
proposed mast would exceed the height of surrounding streetlight
columns, the nearby two storey dwellings and trees. However, the
supporting information submitted with the application states that
there is a network requirement for the mast to be such a height and
it is the lowest possible height it can be to provide the necessary
coverage.
10.15 The
drawings submitted with the application indicate that existing
trees to the east of the proposed installation are 16m high and the
proposed mast at 18m, would be 2m higher than the highest trees.
There is however a technical requirement for the height of the mast
to exceed the height of adjoining trees to provide network
coverage. The siting of the mast close to existing trees would
provide some screening and a backdrop to the proposed installation.
Further, it is considered more appropriate to site the mast close
to trees as opposed to a location which would be more open, with no
adjoining vegetation or trees, where such an installation would
appear starker in the streetscene.
10.16 The
proposed mast would comprise a single monopole which would be
slimline in appearance, with the pole itself between 0.3m and 0.4m
wide, with a wider headframe which would be 14m above ground level.
The design of the slimline monopole would be more desirable within
a residential area than another structure such as a lattice
tower.
10.17 The
proposed mast would be of a galvanised finish, with grey cabinets.
The colour of the mast would be acceptable, where the adjoining
trees are deciduous, and the height of the mast would exceed the
tree canopy.
10.18 The
supporting information submitted with the application states that
due to the weight of 5G antennas, many
existing masts are not structurally capable of hosting the
equipment of 2 operators. It is also stated that whilst this mast
will provide network coverage only to the Three network (and not EE
and H3G LTE who have a site sharing agreement); in order to
accommodate a mast share between the 2 operators, this would lead
to a technical requirement of a bulkier designed mast which would
not be appropriate in a residential area. As such, in this
instance, site sharing is not a viable option.
10.19 The
proposed telecommunications equipment would not appear unduly
cluttered in the streetscene when viewed in conjunction with nearby
street furniture, including existing BT cabinets.
10.20 It has
been confirmed that the proposed development would be located
outside of the root protection area and canopy of adjoining
trees. The development
shall comply with the National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG)
'Guidelines for the planning, installation, and maintenance of
utility services in proximity to trees'. An informative is
recommended to cover this point.
10.21 There is a technical need to provide
network coverage in the area. Alternative sites within the
immediate area have been considered and discounted and the
supplementary information submitted with the application states
that the height of the proposed mast is the minimum needed to
provide 5G coverage.
10.22 It is
therefore considered that the siting and appearance of the proposed
development would not result in significant adverse impacts on the
character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore in
accordance with CSDPD Policy CS7, BFBLP 'Saved' Policies EN20 and
SC4, and the NPPF.
iv. Impact on highway safety
10.23 The siting of the proposed
monopole and associated cabinets would not affect the adjoining
carriageway on Ringmead or Turnberry; and would also not affect the
footpath.
10.24 As such, the siting of the
proposal would not result in adverse highway safety issues and
would be in accordance with CS23 of the CSDPD and the
NPPF.
Other
matters
v. Health
10.25 Paragraph
116 of the NPPF states that "local planning authorities must
determine applications on planning grounds only. They should
not…set health safeguards different from the International
Commission guidelines for public exposure.
10.26 The
applicant has submitted a certificate which confirms that the
proposed mast meets ICNIRP (International Commission Non-Ionising
Radiation Protection) guidelines.
10.27 Public Health England (PHE) is clear
that there is no credible evidence of a negative impact of mobile
technology, including 5G on people’s health. Central to
PHE’s advice are the guidelines published by the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP), which is formally recognised by the World Health
Organisation.
10.28 As an ICNIRP certificate accompanies the
application, there are no grounds for refusal based on perceived
health risks.
vi. Need
10.29 BFBLP
'Saved' Policy SC4 refers to telecommunication development being
permitted provided that there is a need for the development.
10.30 Paragraph
116 of the NPPF states that "local planning authorities must
determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not
seek to prevent competition between different operators, question
the need for an electronic communications system, or set health
safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines
for public exposure.
10.31 The
technical need for the proposed installation within this location
has been demonstrated, along with other sites considered and
discounted within the relevant search area.
vii. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
10.32 Bracknell
Forest Council introduced charging for its Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) on 6th April 2015. CIL is applied as a charge on
each square metre of new development. The amount payable varies
depending on the location of the development within the borough and
the type of development.
10.33 CIL
applies to any new build (except outline applications and some
reserved matters applications that leave some reserved matters
still to be submitted), including extensions of 100 square metres
of gross internal floor space, or more, or new build that involves
the creation of additional dwellings. In this case the proposal is
not CIL liable as it would not constitute the creation of internal
floor space/a new dwelling.
-
CONCLUSION
11.1 An assessment
has been made as to whether the prior approval of the Local
Planning Authority is required for the siting and appearance of the
proposed development which comprises the installation of a 18m high
Phase 8 Monopole with a wraparound cabinet and 3no. additional
cabinets, in accordance with Class A, Part 16, Schedule 2 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England)
Order 2015 (as amended).
11.2 It is concluded that prior approval is required and
should be granted.
11.3 Prior approval
granted by Class A, Part 16, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as
amended) is subject to conditions set out in paragraphs A.3 (9),
A.3 (11) and A.2 (2) which specify the development must:
-
Begin no later than the expiration of 5 years beginning with the
date on which the approval was given or in any other case, not
later than the expiration of 5 years beginning with the date on
which the local planning authority received the application;
-
Be undertaken in accordance with the details approved or submitted
with the application;
-
Be removed from the land as soon as reasonably practicable after it
is no longer required for electronic communications purposes; and
the land restored to its condition before the development took
place.
-
RECOMMENDATION
12.1 That
prior approval is required and that the decision to grant prior
approval for the siting and appearance of the development
subject to the following additional conditions is delegated to the Head of Planning:
1. The development hereby permitted shall
be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans
received 7 May 2021 by the Local Planning Authority:
002 SITE
LOCATION PLAN
210 PROPOSED H3G
SITE PLAN
260 PROPOSED H3G
ELEVATION
303 PROPOSED H3G ANTENNA SCHEDULE & LINE
CONFIGURATION
305 EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE & SUPPORT STRUCTURE
DETAILS
REASON: To ensure that the
development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning
Authority.
Informatives
1. The development shall comply with the National
Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) 'Guidelines for the planning,
installation, and maintenance of utility services in proximity to
trees'
