 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
After applying, and first getting my application rejected for using the wrong scale on a plan map (despite using a 1:1 copy of the same plan that was used by the previous owners two year's previously to apply for an extension - go figure !) things then got under way. A Planning Officer paid a visit, and went to the proposed site of the mast, and was shown the surrounding trees etc.
He showed me the letters of objection that had come in. Although there was a letter containing many signatures, I don't think this carries as much weight as if people had been motivated to write in individually etc.
n.b. Don't worry about some of the odd dimensions
quoted below - there are typo's !
| Consultations
WCC (HP) Consulted – views received 07.11.01: No objection ENG Consulted : views received 12.11.01: No objection EHO Consulted – views received 07.11.01: No objection Wythall PC Consulted – views awaited Publicity 1 site notice posted 01.11.01
Objection: Significant and detrimental visual effect
The site and its surroundings This application relates to a period semi-detached dwelling located on the western side of Baccabox Lane. The property contains double bay windows to the front elevation with a half pitched single garage to the left of the dwelling. The front garden is laid mainly to lawn with a gravel driveway and beech hedging to all boundaries. The rear garden is long and narrow in character and contains a variety of semi-mature and mature planting, including trees, both within the plot and to the boundaries. The dwelling overlooks open fields to the west and is within recognised Green Belt. Proposal This application relates to the erection of a radio mast for private amateur radio purposes. The proposed mast consists of a single tube 0.90 metres in width with a top-mounted rotator. The mast has a retracted height of 3.35 metres and a fully extended height of 8.5 metres. The mast is proposed to contain a top mounted aerial. This aerial consists of a number of horizontal elements between 0.20 metres and 0.30 metres in diameter. The applicant is also seeking retrospective consent for the retention of a steel pole support for wire antenna 7 metres in height and a vertical antenna 7.9 metres in height. Relevant policies
Others PPG1, PPG2, PPG8 Notes I consider the main issue with this application relates to whether the proposal is appropriate development in the Green Belt and if not whether any special circumstances exist which would override the harm that would be caused. The effect of the proposal must also be considered in terms of impact on the amenity of adjacent occupiers and the surrounding area. Policy DS2 of the Draft Bromsgrove District Local Plan outlines the development that is considered appropriate in the Green Belt. The proposal does not meet the criteria and therefore is considered inappropriate development within the Green Belt contrary to Policy DS2 and PPG2. It now follows for me to consider whether there are very special circumstances that justify departing from the normal presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 Telecommunications (August 2001) notes that radio is used for hobby and leisure purposes. This PPG goes on to state that many UK participants have learnt about radio through being licensed amateurs and the Government encourages this interest. Amateurs have to pass examinations to be licensed to operate, but many then install fixed antenna subject to planning rules. Because many operators want to use low short-wave frequencies, these need long wire type antenna. I would refer Members to a recent Appeal statement for the erection of a tubular steel mast for private amateur radio use at 23 Dark Lane (Appeal Ref: APP/P1805/A/00/1042848). This Appeal was allowed in August 2000. Although in a residential area, the site of the proposed mast related to the boundary with the Green Belt and I consider the issues raised by the Inspector to be pertinent to this particular application. The applicant has submitted comprehensive information with the application and a copy of the letter accompanying the application is given in Appendix 2.9. I consider the proposed mast would not be widely visible. The existing vertical antenna for which the applicant is seeking retrospective consent can be seen obliquely from the gaps between the dwellings along Baccabox Lane and in the larger gap created by 33 Baccabox Lane being set back from the surrounding line of dwellings. Although I acknowledge the proposed mast would be of a sturdier design than this mast with attached horizontal antennas ranging from 0.20 metres to 0.30 metres and 0.10 metres higher at its fully extended height, I consider this mast would retain this obliqueness and I consider these antennas would be very slim feature and I do not consider they would have a marked visual impact. Furthermore the applicant has stated that the mast would be retained at its retracted state (3.35 metres) for the majority of time, with the mast only raised during its use. I also consider the mast would be partly screened by the two existing sheds to the rear boundary of the application site and the dense mature and semi-mature trees and shrubs both on the boundaries and within the application site which provides adequate screening in all seasons. Whilst I accept that the views from the upper rear windows of the neighbouring properties are very attractive, looking out across nearby fields, given the fact that the proposed mast would not be widely visible, the relatively minor nature of the differences between what exists and what is proposed and the distance between the proposed mast and neighbouring buildings, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the appearance of the area. Paragraph 102 of PPG8 states that in any development, significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment of any kind can be a material planning consideration. The Radiocommunications Agency has statutory powers for dealing with electromagnetic interference caused by radio transmitter or by unwanted signals emitted by other electrical equipment under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. However, only if there is clear evidence that significant electromagnetic interference will arise or will probably arise that no practicable remedy is available will there generally be any justification for taking it into account in determining a planning application. Although the adjacent occupiers have raised concern over television interference, no substantial evidence has been put forward to indicate that the proposed mast would cause additional electrical interference and I have received no objections to the mast currently in situ to which the applicant is seeking retrospective consent. The Council’s Chief Environmental Health Officer has raised no objections to the proposals. In my view the siting and design of the proposals constitute the very special circumstances that would allow Members to approve the application. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposals will not be materially detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and to the visual amenities of the adjacent occupiers. RECOMMENDATION that permission be GRANTED sfc: 1. Time limit
only
|
In summary, I attribute the successful application to the following:
a) In the first instance, think of an ambitious target, and then show lots of compromise to arrive at a final solution (that is still acceptable to you.) Be realistic in what you'd like. A small yagi is better than no yagi at all. Make maximum use of screening from your house or trees etc.
b) Be completely reasonable to your neighbours.
c) Be completely reasonable to the planning
officer.
