Agenda item

(In accordance with the Council’s Constitution paragraph 7.13.5, the Chairman proposed a no notice motion to continue the meeting beyond 10.00pm on the basis that the business of the meeting be concluded by 10.30pm. This was seconded by Councillor Keith Woodhams and agreed by the Committee.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 22/01541/TELE56 in respect of an application to determine if prior approval was required for a proposed 15m monopole tower to support antenna, associated radio-equipment housing and ancillary development thereto.

Ms Gemma Kirk (Senior Planning Officer) introduced the item which took into account all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor George Nyamie, Purley on Thames Parish Council representative, Ms Cathy Walls and Mr Richard Farrow, objectors, and Councillor Rick Jones, Ward Member addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Councillor Nyamie in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         That there was a better location for the site 200 metres down the road.

Members Questions for the Parish Council:

The Chairman asked what Councillor Nyamie believed was wrong with the proposed location and Councillor Nyamie stated that the preferred location was a dead space and remote, which would be favourable to residents.

Councillor Linden pondered whether the site referenced by Councillor Nyamie was near the Knowsley Road area, of which Councillor Nyamie confirmed and noted that it was a considered site.

Objectors Representations:

Ms Walls in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         There was no real justification for the proposed location of the mast and that ease of access and cost were not viable reasons for permitting planning.

·         The applicant (Dalcour Maclaren) described the mast as visually intrusive and this conflicted with planning policy.

·         That the mast could be a potential distraction to drivers.

·         There was already an existing mast at this location.

·         There was no evidence that anyone had visited or given proper consideration to the site location.

·         The tree line did not obscure the visual impact of the mast.

·         Dalcour Maclaren had not consulted with local residents and schools despite their claims.

·         Reading Borough Council had also turned down a similar application by Dalcour Maclaren for visual reasons.

Members Questions for Objectors:

For the benefit of those Members who were unable to attend the site visit, the Chairman clarified the distance between Ms Walls house and the proposed site as being of a similar distance as between the Chairman’s seat and the speakers’ lectern.

Ward Members Representations:

Councillor Jones in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         The authority could only provide approval on appearance and location and could not recommend potential alternative locations.

·         Councillor Jones supported the objections of the residents.

·         The application could affect the green corridor.

·         The site could be a road safety hazard by obscuring sight lines.

·         The site was too close to residential houses and the developers seemed to have exaggerated the height of the tree screen.

·         There was another potential site that could overcome residents’ concerns.

Members Questions for Ward Members:

Members had no questions for the Ward Member.

Members Questions for Officers:

Councillor Law wanted clarification over whether the Committee could turn down the application on the basis that there were better sites that had not been properly assessed and that there were concerns over the mast boxes blocking the sight lines of drivers. Ms Kirk clarified that the boxes would be situated near the kerb of the road and Mr Dray stated that developers did offer alternatives and that it had been concluded there would be no harm to the location, as a result they did not need to consider other sites as the chosen one was considered acceptable.

The Committee could only consider alternative sites if they thought there would be considerable harm caused to the area by development. Councillor Law asked whether an obstruction to sight lines would be considered harmful and Mr Dray confirmed that the Committee could not turn down an application because they believed there would be a better location.

Mr Dowding explained that there needed to be a clearance from the roadside of 450mm, however in regards to visibility he was unsure about how the cabinets obscured driver’s sight lines, although the pole itself would not be an issue.

Councillor Linden was concerned about the overgrowth on the road and road sign in the area. Mr Dowding said he would pass on the issue with regards to foliage.

Councillor Macro wondered why there was no response from the Tree Officer, to which Ms Kirk noted that the trees were considered a sufficient enough distance away and the trees themselves were not covered by a Tree Preservation Order, or within a Conservation Area.

Debate

Councillor Macro was concerned regarding the effect the boxes had on sight lines, as well as the visual impact they would have on the houses, as a result Councillor Macro proposed refusal on those grounds and Councillor Law seconded the proposal.

The Chairman noted that even though it was a 30mph zone, the boxes would definitely obscure sight lines.

Councillor Mayes believed that the bend was too steep to the left and would obscure the view of the drivers and that even if they were under the trees that would lead to issues with the tree roots.

Mr Dray asked whether Councillors Macro and Law meant that the mast was too close to houses in regards to a character appearance point of view or residential amenity and both Councillors answered that both were viable considerations.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal made by Councillor Macro, seconded by Councillor Law, to refuse planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director of Development and Regulation be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Reasons

1) Oxford Road (A329) forms part of a green corridor which are sought to be protected and enhance under Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy. The verdant grass verge in which the proposed telecommunications development is proposed contributes to this green corridor. Behind the proposed development are trees and hedges that make a strong contribution to the green character of the area and street scene. This character also has a positive contribution for the residential dwellings to the west/south-west (Clairmore Gardens). Policies CS14 and CS19 of the Core Strategy seek high quality development that must respect and enhance the character of the area with particular regard to ensuring that new development is appropriate in terms of location, scale and design in the existing settlement form, pattern and character.

The proposed 15 metre monopole and cabinets are in a prominent position on the grass verge (close to the kerb) and due to the incongruous appearance would be intrusive in the street scene. The intrusion would not be sympathetic or well camouflaged and therefore harmful to the 'green' character of the area and its positive contribution to the residential properties at Clairmore Gardens. It is considered that the scheme would neither protect nor enhance the green corridor.

Both the siting and appearance of the telecommunications development are considered to be materially harmful to the green corridor and the positive contribution this has to the character of the area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and paragraph 115 in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

2) The grass verge in which the proposed telecommunications development will be sited is adjoined to the west by the residential dwellings at Clairmore Gardens. The residential dwellings 3 Clairmore Gardens and 4 Clairmore Gardens adjoin the grass verge where the proposed telecommunications mast would be sited. Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy advises that development should make a positive contribution to the quality of life in West Berkshire.

Due to the proximity and height of the telecommunications development it is considered that there would be a harmful overbearing impact on these properties. This impact would impact on both residential gardens and dwellings of those identified to be adjacent to the development.

Both the siting and appearance of the telecommunications development are considered to be materially harmful to the amenity of residents. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).and the positive contribution this has to the character of the area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and paragraph 115 in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

3) Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy advises that road safety is a key consideration for all development. The proposed radio equipment housing is positioned in close proximity to the A329 carriageway. The siting of the development is on a bend on the A329 and it is considered that the development, in particular the radio equipment housing, would interfere with the forward visibility splays. It is therefore considered that the siting would result in a hazard to highway users and is contrary to Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).