Planning Officer Report

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:309656}}

Officer's Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AS THE RECOMMENDATION IS CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY

Description Of Application Site

1. The application site is St Germans Cathedral, which is a Registered Building located in the Peel Conservation Area.

Proposal

1. The application is seeking planning permission for the removal of louvres from four window openings and install replacement GRP louvres.

Development Plan Policies

1. Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: GP2 and Environment Policy 32

1. Environment Policy 32 states that "Extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural interest will not be permitted"

1. Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that:

"In considering –

• (a) Whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting, or
• (b) Whether to grant registered building consent for any works,

the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."

Relevant Planning History

1. There are previous applications on the site; however, none are considered relevant in the determination of this application, apart from the concurrent registered building consent application for the proposed works.

Representations

1. Peel Town Commissioners have recommended that the application be refused. The Commissioners have concerns over health issues regarding radio frequency radiation particularly relating to bellringers in the bell tower but also further afield including the nearby proximity of the nursery school and residences. It is suggested that there will only be a limited 3G customer base as most mobiles now connect to Wi-Fi. The Commissioners are of the view that the applicant has not shown economic need and that the technology proposed as been superseded by newer 4G technology.

1. The occupier of No.10 Mona Street have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) the installation of the antenna will impact on health and businesses, i.e. a nursery and children’s care centre, 2) the alternative of Peel headlands has not been discussed and appears to be suitable, 3) The proposal is not benefiting the conservation area, i.e. replacing sandstone with fibreglass, 4) Already suitable coverage in the area, 5) Installation of the equipment will have a detrimental effect on property desirability, 6) Does the church benefit financially? Are they agreeing purely for financial reasons to fund development in other areas of the church.

1. The occupiers of No.13 Mona Street have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) impact on health from the installation of the equipment, 2) close proximity to the primary school, many playgrounds and the large residential population.

1. The occupiers of No.9 Albany Road have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Impact on their health and the B&B business, 2) No Problem with 3G reception in the area, 3) Can’t MT improve what’s on Peel Hill

1. The occupiers of 29 Church Street have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Impact on health, 2) Close proximity to Peel Playschool and the The Children’s Centre and the area is too populated.

1. The occupier of 16 Boilley Spittal have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Impact to health for people living in the area, 2) their children attend the Peel Playschool and would not like them to be so near to this installation on a daily basis.

1. The occupiers of Ballachrink, 14 Peveril Avenue have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) the proposal ignores a group of people that uses the bell tower on a regular basis, 2) there is no reference to an assessment of any potential risks to those people accessing the bell tower.

1. The occupiers of 4 Derby Road have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) impact on health to the general public within a densely populated area, 2) If it is essential, a more suitable location for it should be found out of the centre away from the general public.

1. The occupier of Cronk Barre, Tynwald Road have objected to the application on the following ground: 1) It is not clear that the EMF safety certificate has taken into account the bellringers proximity to the proposed telecommunications transmitters, their activities within the tower and how they will be affected.

1. The occupiers of No.14 Derby Road have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Close proximity to a nursery school, Sunday School, Primary School and a secondary school, 2) Impact on health, 3) The applicant has not adequately demonstrated

that they have a need for the proposed development in order to provide signal coverage to their customers, 4) Queries to what lengths the applicant has considered mast sharing 5) the applicant fails to mention whether they have considered upgrading they existing base stations to provide improved 3G coverage, 5) There was insufficient notification to the public regarding the planning proposal, 6) Any alterations to the Cathedral would affect detrimentally to its character as a building of special architectural and historic interest. Replacing the louvres with glass reinforced plastic goes against Environment Policy 34 of the Strategic Plan, which states that "In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred", 7) Impact on bats from the mast emissions, 8) The Strategic Plan has adopted a precautionary approach. Implementing this approach would ensure that any mast is located sufficiently far from residential areas and sensitive locations such as schools, children's nurseries, hospitals etc. Also the outdoor exposure intensity at the aforementioned locations should at least comply with the Salzburg Resolution limit of 1mW/sq m. A value which is 4500 times lower than permitted by the current ICNIRP guidelines for microwave radiation at 900 MHz. 8) Health is a material consideration in the determination of the application, 9) The signal in the Peel area where the mast is proposed is already adequate, 10) Who would be liable for damages should RF radiation is proved to be dangerous to health, 11) What commitments have the Isle of Man Government to the residents of Peel in terms of quality of life as stated in the Human Rights Act (article 8) "you have the right to respect: for your private and family life and your home"

1. The occupier of 18 Stanley Road have objected to the application on health related issues in relation to the guidelines being only guidelines and that transmitters should not be placed in built up residential areas.

1. The occupiers of 23 Mona Street have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) impact on health, 2) Close proximity to their property, 3) devaluation of their property, 4) the installation is: a few tens of metres from the Children's centre and a Nursery; less than half a mile from Peel Clothworkers primary school; within a few metres of Corrin Hall which is often used for children's parties and brownie gatherings; in the centre of a densely populated residential area which is, in our opinion, already has more than adequate mobile coverage.

1. The occupiers of 5 The Grove have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) Questions the need for improved 3G coverage as service is already adequate, 2) Alternative sites have not been adequately assessed, 3) Research has shown that it is not yet possible to set out the health implication of a mast, 4) close proximity to their home, a primary school, playgroup, the Children's Centre and being located within an extremely densely populated area, 5) their did not move to the area, while paying higher prices and rates to worry about masts in the church tower overlooking their garden, 6) The effects of masts are not yet fully known and to put the population of Peel at risk in any way is totally unacceptable, 7) morality of the Church being involved in a financial exchange with Manx Telecom

1. The occupier of 15a Factory Lane have objected to the application on the following grounds: 1) If granted, this move to change the intrinsic use of this building from purely a place of worship would have a significant and derogatory impact on the understanding in the community of "Conservation", 2) disappointed at the Church authorities for considering this approach by Manx Telecom, 3) health concerns, 4) improvement of telecommunication is required in the centre of Peel is simply untrue, 5) alternative to the site have been sufficient considered.

1. Senior Biodiversity Officer (Zoologist) of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture has stated that he had arranged for an inspection of the building to see if there are any bat issues that need addressing.

Procedural Matter

1. The application was originally advertised as the 'Installation of four telecommunication equipment within the bell tower'.

1. However, on closer inspection of the application, it has become apparent the installation of the antennas and the associated equipment are internal works which do not materially change the external appearance of the building, and thus, falls outside the definition of development defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1999.

1. The objectors' comments relate to the proposed installation of the antennas into the building and their comments cover the following issues.

• Impact on Health
• Devaluation of property
• Need for the antennas to be installed in the area
• Human Rights - Enjoyment of their property.
• Close proximity of the antennas to schools, a nursery, the Children's centre and being located in a densely populated area of Peel

1. However, the application has since been re-advertised with a revised description of development to cover elements of the scheme that only require planning permission, i.e. the installation of GRP louvres.

1. In the determination of this application, the Planning Authority is unable to take into account any of the comments submitted in relation to the proposed antennas as they do not require planning permission. The assessment of this application is limited to whether the proposed GRP louvres impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Registered Building.

Conservation Officer'S Report

1. As the property is a Registered Building (RB 204) and located within the Peel Conservation Area, designated in 1990, the content of this application has been considered with particular regard to General Policy 2, Environment Policies 32, 34 and 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007) as well as RB/3: general criteria applied in considering Registered Building applications and Policy RB/5 Alterations and Extensions and CA/2 Special Planning Considerations as set out within Planning Policy Statement 1/01- Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.

1. The actual impact on the Registered Building will be minimal involving the replacement of the existing timber louvers with a GRP facsimile to allow the antennae located within the tower to work. In itself, this should not have a detrimental impact on the character of the Registered Building, or the Conservation Area within which it is located as it should not look substantially different to that there. The installation of the equipment associated with the antennae is readily reversible and should not have a detrimental impact on the character of the Registered Building and are therefore acceptable.

Issues

1. The applicant has provided a sample of the GRP louvres to be used along and photographs of existing louvres. The applicant has achieved a near match with the existing louvres. It is considered the proposed louvres would not look appear out of place when viewed from ground level or from a distance. The Conservation Officer also considers the internal works proposed will have minimal impact on the Registered Building.

1. In summary, it is considered the proposed would have minimal impact on the character and setting of the Registered Buildings and minimal impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Conclusion

1. It is recommended that Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions.

Party Status

1. The local authority (Peel Town Commissioners) are, by virtue of the Registered Buildings Regulations 2005, Regulation 8 (5)(e) is considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

1. The occupier of No. 14 Derby Road does not adjoin the application site and therefore should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupiers of No.4 Derby Road adjoins the application site and therefore should be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupiers of No.5 The Grove adjoins the application site and therefore should be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupier of Cronk Baare does not adjoin the application site and therefore should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupier of No’s 10, 13 and 23 Mona Street does not adjoin the application site and therefore should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupier of 18 Stanley Road does not adjoin the application site and therefore should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupier of 9 Albany Road does not adjoin the application site and therefore should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupier of 29 Church Street does not adjoin the application site and therefore should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupier of 16 Boilley Spittal does not adjoin the application site and therefore should not be afforded party status in this instance.

1. The occupier of 15a Factory Lane does not adjoin the application site and therefore should not be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.12.2012 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the installation of telecommunications equipment and installation of replacement louvres as shown in drawing numbers 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 date stamped 12th September 2012, Equipment Specifications contained in Appendix 4 of the site specific supplementary information date stamped 12 September 2012 and drawing number 005 date stamped 2nd November 2012.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...

Signed : ... Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO