Officer Report

Application No.: 16/01291/B Applicant: Sure (IOM) Ltd Proposal: Replacement of an existing lamp post with an antenna topped lamp post with associated equipment cabinets Site Address: Sure Site, Near Junction With Lakeside Road Hailwood Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 04.01.2017 Site Visit: 04.01.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land situated between a pond and Hailwood Avenue in Douglas. Within the application site is a lamp-post, a short section of tarmacadam footpath and beyond this to the southwest a sloping bank covered in grass and adjacent to the pond.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the installation of an antenna-topped lamp post with associated equipment cabinets. - 2.2 The equipment cabinets would be partially set within the grassed bank: stepped access would be provided from the footpath, but otherwise the four cabinets shown would be surrounded by stone walls. The cabinets would be formed of steel and coloured grey. They are shown as being 0.9m in height, 0.60m in width and 0.48m in depth The wall, to be formed of gabion baskets, would be between 0.75m and 0.50m above ground level, but no more and no less. Some excavation of material from the bank is required in order to set the equipment compound level. - 2.3 The antenna-topped lamp post would be sited 1m northwest of the existing lamp-post, which under the proposals would be removed. This would be 10.15m in height; the lamp would be

• 7.9m above ground level, with the remaining height of the structure formed by the antenna.

2.4 The application is accompanied by a certificate of compliance with the World Health Organisation's ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure to radiation from telecommunications equipment. (ICNIRP is the initialism for the "International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection".) - 2.5 The application has been submitted with a Supporting Statement outlining the need for the proposal, alternative sites considered, and the likely visual impact resulting from the design and location of the mast proposed.

2.6 With regards the need for the development, the Statement explains that Sure have received roughly 500 complaints since 2011 regarding the lack of mobile phone reception in the area, to which coverage is provided from the Isle of Man Police Headquarters on Dukes Avenue. The Statement explains that the government's Digital Inclusion Strategy 2016-2021 recognises the importance of bringing wider online access to all residents. It also notes Sure's willingness to invest £100,000 in the form of the current application, in addition to previous attempts by Manx Telecom to develop a site in the area (which the applicant has since confirmed relates largely to permitted development works), as further evidence of the need for additional coverage in this area. - 2.7 The sites discounted include the Hillberry Water Reservoir, where Manx Telecom recently had an application refused for telecommunications equipment, and with respect to which the current applicant (Sure) were in discussions regarding site-sharing. The second site discounted was The Cat With No Tail public house, which Sure indicate that their projections show would provide insufficient coverage for the targeted area. The third discounted site is near Johnny Watterson's Lane: the Statement explains that the coverage sought would, from this location, require the installation of a 17m-high mast (and even then would provide insufficient coverage), which they feel would be visually intrusive. The fourth discounted site is at the Creg-ny-Baa, which the Statement explains would provide for no coverage in the target area. The fifth and final discounted site is on the Police headquarters building; the Statement is of the view that this site has been developed to its maximum potential for coverage of the target area and does not provide for further coverage. It is therefore not understood why these final two sites were included for consideration in the first place, although perhaps the conclusions outlined in the Statement were not known until the assessment was undertaken. - 2.8 With regards the visual impact, the Statement explains that the site and form of the antenna has been chosen specifically to minimise the effect on the area. The lamp-post design is intended to reflect one that is already in place and which forms a line of such posts, while the equipment cabinets will be low-profile and mounted in a hollow to be screened by shrubbery and a low stone wall. Sure feel that this approach will help protect the aesthetic value of the lakes. - 2.9 The Statement further explains that the site is a maximum possible distance from local schools and children's play areas, while it is also set within the 'bowl' of the wider area and therefore provides a good site given the topography of the area. The Statement concludes that "given all of the above, this application represents the best possible site for a new mobile phone development to address the extremely poor coverage in his area". - 2.10 The Statement includes coverage diagrams showing where existing coverage can penetrate these demonstrate that there is fairly limited access across the Governor's Hill estate. - 2.11 The Statement also explains that Sure have discussed the proposal with MHKs, Douglas Borough Council, headteachers of two local schools and businesses in the area, while they have also arranged some drop-in sessions and conducted interviews with local media. An Appendix to their Statement includes comments made to Sure by people following those pre-application consultation exercises. The applicant has confirmed that these are the only comments they received following on from their consultation exercises and prior to the application's submission: eight comments are objecting to the idea, while five are in favour. - 2.12.1 The Planning Committee may be aware that there is a Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Telecommunications) Order 2013, (hereafter 'the Telecommunications Order') under which certain telecommunications equipment can be installed without the need for a full planning application, or in some circumstances where the Department may only consider the siting and appearance of equipment proposed. However, the Committee has never been presented with an application seeking what is known as 'prior approval' for the siting and appearance of a mast under the Telecommunications Order because the secondary legislation does not allow for a decision on such an application to be taken by the Committee - only the Director of the Directorate.

• 2.12.2 In any case, the Telecommunications Order only applies to persons granted a licence to act as a telecommunications code system operator. At present, the only 'person' with that licence on the Island is Manx Telecom and, as such, the Telecommunications Order does not apply in this instance. Accordingly, the application now before Members is a full planning application and accordingly all material considerations may be taken into account in its assessment.

3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 3.1 The site lies within a much wider area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Douglas Local Plan, which is not accompanied by a supporting Written Statement. Accordingly, the only planning policies that the proposal can be assessed against are found within the Strategic Plan 2016. - 3.2 Infrastructure Policy 3 (IP3) reads as follows:

"A balance must be struck between the need for new, evolving communications systems to satisfy residential and business demand and the impact that the necessary infrastructure will have upon the environment. Measures which may help to achieve a satisfactory balance will include a presumption against visually intrusive masts in sensitive landscapes, the encouragement of mast sharing by different operators, and the removal of redundant infrastructure. Exceptions to this policy would need to demonstrate a strategic national need, which cannot be otherwise secured by mast sharing or alternative locations."

3.3 General Policy 2 (GP2) adds further considerations in respect of assessing the visual impact and related issues with respect to proposed development:

"Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;

• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them."

3.4 Given the site's adjacency to a wider area of open space, Recreation Policy 2 (RP2) applies:

"Development which would adversely affect, or result in the loss of Open Space or a recreation facility that is or has the potential to be, of recreational or amenity value to the community will not be permitted except in the following circumstances:

• (a) where alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available; and
• (b) where there would be an overall community gain from the development, and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility would have no significant unacceptable effect on local open space or recreation provision or on the character or amenity of the area."

3.5 In addition to the above, it is worth noting the contents of the 'Vision2020' document, which, when released, set out the government's three priorities as being to grow the economy, balance the budget and protect the vulnerable. It had this to say about telecommunications equipment:

"The Isle of Man will be known as a leading centre for innovative SMEs to relocate and grow due to its excellent infrastructure (telecoms, electricity and data hosting)."

3.6 In addition, the Chief Minister stated as follows in his speech regarding the Programme for Government:

"The cost of high speed internet access for business has also been raised as a concern by many in industry. This concern has been echoed in a recent report examining our telecoms infrastructure. The report makes a number of recommendations to improve the provision of our telecoms infrastructure."

This report is understood to not yet be ready for public consumption.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The site itself has not been the subject of applications considered to be material to the assessment of this application. There have, however, been other applications for telecommunications equipment elsewhere on the Island, and it is worth noting the thought processes of the Inspector in his assessment of the application submitted by Manx Telecom at Hillberry Reservoir (PA 16/00068/TEL) for a telecommunications mast and associated equipment cabinet. - 4.2 It is worth bearing in mind that the proposal there was for a lattice-style mast adjacent to a covered reservoir and visible from more rural parts of the Island, including the TT course, and also broke the skyline when viewed from there. It was a similar distance to dwellings as is the equipment proposed under the current application. - 4.3 At paragraph 66 of his report he comments as follows:

"Policy IP3 is the starting point and requires a balance to be struck between the need for facilities such as these, to satisfy residential and business demand and the impact that the necessary infrastructure would have on the environment. It is clear that mast sharing is not an option. In terms of the required balancing exercise the main question is whether this identified need outweighs the visual effects of the mast."

4.4 This view somewhat pre-supposes that the 'visual effects' of the mast are unacceptable. - 4.5 It is also worth noting his conclusions with regards the principle of the proposal, which are outlined in his paragraphs 47-49 inclusive:

"The site lies within an area zoned as 'Reservoir' or 'Waterworks and Reservoir' in the Onchan Local Plan (OLP) adopted in 2000. Thus a telecommunications use of the land is contrary to the OLP. However, this is not an uncommon situation for such necessary telecommunications and infrastructure installations which are sometimes required to be within or near to residential, industrial or other areas. In other words such installations need to be positioned where services are needed but clearly subject to whether or not they comply with policy IP3 and other relevant policies.

"In this case it is clear that the reservoir site itself was needed since the area required a water provision. The reservoir was located in what then must have been open countryside since it was outside of any other land designation. However, it was required at Birch Hill to enable a necessary utility service to be provided. In this case therefore, although the proposal does not accord with the

OLP designation the question must be; do the other material considerations indicate that a decision can be made which is not in accordance with the designation part of the development plan?

"I consider that the principle of the use is acceptable and that policy IP3 is the most relevant policy to consider. All parties to the Inquiry agreed that this was the case. I also agree with the Planning Officer that, although policy GP2 does not directly apply because the site is not zoned…it does set out some important general principles that are appropriate to take into account of in assessing the proposal. It is therefore relevant and this was also generally agreed at the Inquiry."

4.6 In terms of that mast's impact on the nearby Public Open Space, the Inspector concluded as follows:

"Despite the evidence from the [Isle of Man Wildlife Trust], I do not agree with the contention that the proposal would significantly prejudice the basic use of the Centenary Park. However, it would adversely affect the character and appearance of this adjacent open space due to the harmful visual impact in this sensitive location. The Centenary Park site has been set up for the benefit of the community and this has been planned for many years.

"I can only agree with the view of the IOMWT that, following years of trying to preserve the natural beauty of the land, it would be most inappropriate to site an 'industrial structure' at the reservoir site. I have found that the proposal would adversely affect this open space and recreational facility and consider that it is also contrary to policy RP2."

- 5.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

• 5.1.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure initially sought a deferral on the application, commenting as follows on 23rd December 2016:

"The proposal is to remove a street lighting column and replace it with a telecommunications mast combined with a street lighting fixture, there will also be control cabinets with associated walls located adjacent to a pedestrian footpath.

"There is no indication of where service vehicles will park when the cabinets require attendance of an engineer, without this information it is not possible assess the impact of the application.

"Please defer this application until the applicant as provided the relevant information."

• 5.1.2 The agent was contacted for further details. On 24th January 2017, they indicated a proposed location for a van to be parked, which is within the parking area associated with the dwellings on Lakeside View, to the south, and offered the following comments:

"With regard to parking for maintenance activities I would suggest the area circled in red below, as it is off Hailwood Avenue and in a designated parking area. This is approximately 80 m from the proposed site and as the heaviest component part is 15 kg, and easily carried in 1 hand, I would not envision any difficulties. As maintenance and repair activities are normally carried out during working hours the impact on residents should be minimal.

"Other than for construction, there have on averaged been one visit every 2 years, or less, per location for fault rectification. We also visit each site twice a year to carry out preventative maintenance and safety inspections. Site visits for repair work are typically less than 1 hour, site maintenance visits up to 2 hours."

• 5.1.3 On 24th January 2017, Highway Services concluded as follows:

"This should be fine as long as the parking is indicated within the method statement / risk assessment for the site."

• 5.1.4 Highway Services commented in a subsequent telephone conversation that the method statement / risk assessment referred to were for Sure's own purposes, and need not be controlled by Planning condition.
• 5.2 The Fisheries Directorate commented on the application on 30th November 2016:

"This planning application has been checked by Fisheries Officers. I can confirm that DEFA Fisheries have no concerns in relation to this development from a fisheries perspective. This is due to the nature of both the planned development and of the nearby watercourse."

• 5.3.1 The Director of Public Health was contacted for her views. On 3rd January 2017, she advised as follows:

"Thank you for requesting a public health perspective on the proposed telecommunications mast at Lakeside Road/Hailwood Avenue, Douglas. The application includes a declaration of conformity with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and therefore, on the basis of best currently available evidence, does not represent any threat to population health. I note the application makes reference to the adjacent area being residential and containing two schools. The proposed site takes cognisance of that as well as the need to extend coverage.

"There are no additional features which would indicate any need for further health impact assessment."

• 5.3.2 In respect of one family's specific circumstances, her views were again sought, and she commented as follows:

"There is now a substantial amount of research into the health effects of mobile phones and base stations on human health and there is no convincing evidence that exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children. From the scientific evidence perspective, there is no reason to restrict the siting of base stations close to what are often regarded as 'sensitive sites' (eg schools or hospitals). Similarly, there is no evidence based reason to restrict sites on the basis of residential areas where children and/or people with existing health conditions reside. In respect of the specific query, I cannot comment on the point made about amenity (view, intrusion on play area, etc) but from a public health perspective there are no grounds for restricting sites based on proximity of children or people with existing ill health (including cancers)."

5.4 The Communications Commission was approached for their view. Following due deliberation, they decided to offer no formal comment on the application. They explained that the role of the Commission is as a regulator and therefore to offer formal comment on the merits of a planning application would conflict with that. - 5.5 Douglas Borough Council offered no objection to the application in comments, received 20th December 2016. The Council reached their conclusion on the basis of a report presented to them, which is summarised in the letter received from the Council. That report notes: the only valid planning considerations are the siting and appearance of the proposed installation; General Policy 2 is a material consideration but Infrastructure Policy 3 specifically relates to this kind of application; the roughly 500 complaints received by Sure regarding telecommunications coverage in the area; the proposed site "appears to be the least sensitive in terms of visual impact", with it being noted that the site at Hillberry being rejected on grounds of visual impact at appeal, the Cat with No Tail being discounted due to coverage problems, and the site at Johnny Watterson Lane providing less of an improvement with a larger, more intrusive mast; the mast has a similar appearance to standard Council street lighting columns, which are, at 8m, 2m lower than the proposed mast which would be slightly more robust but of a similar colour to the existing lighting columns; "with the exception of the difference in overall height the mast is likely to be indistinguishable from a street lighting column"; the applicant has provided a Certificate of Compliance with the World Health

• Organisation ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure; "this planning application appears to comply with General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) and (k), and Infrastructure Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016".
• 5.6.1 Comments have been received in objection to the application from local residents, which are summarised in no particular order below:

• o There is a recommendation not to place antenna near to schools but my two children live within 200m of the proposed site;
• o They also regularly play football in the park and feed the ducks near the antenna;
• o The lake and surrounding fields are the only green space in Governors Hill;
• o As Sure customers we would rather endure poor reception than potentially expose children to any radiation;
• o Why has the planning notice not been in place prior to the deadline of 16th December 2016?;
• o The mast is too close to housing and play areas;
• o I am uncertain why the Department of Environment feel that this is not as sensitive an area

• as Johnny Watterson Fields or the Cat With No Tail;

• o I opposed the Manx Telecom mast and it was declined on the grounds of our valuable concerns;
• o I am an electro sensitive person and suffer terribly from pulsed microwave radiation / EMFs and am affected by the modern world daily;
• o Barrie Trower, a former Royal Navy microwave expert, has some excellent evidence on this and this can be easily looked up;
• o Having a mast 100 yards from my home will not help matters;
• o I have concerns for residents health in the area due to microwave exposure 24/7;
• o There is a children's playground nearby and Cronk-y-Berry school is just up the road;
• o Flood risk and electromagnetic fields can affect property value and property owners will have to declare the existence of this mast when selling their homes;
• o If the Sure mast is granted I feel sure this will stir up a fuss between the telecom companies

• Manx Telecom could lose customers - and it is only fair if both companies are equal, i.e. no masts placed in that area;

• o I have seen a picture of a lamppost mast and am quite alarmed by its actual size;
• o I am certain it will have an adverse impact on the environment, would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and also the duck ponds;
• o Despite the application being accepted on 17th November 2016 the yellow form notice has not been displayed by the applicant;
• o The antenna will, at 10.15m high, be visually unsightly;
• o The planning submission does not show the diameter of the new lamp post and casing at the top;
• o The diameter will be around twice the current diameter and so will look totally out of place;
• o The stone wall surrounding the cabinets will be out of place and not in keeping with the surrounding green open space;
• o The landscaping proposed is minimal, a token gesture, and will do nothing to shield the cabinet site, which will be at least 10ft in length;
• o The site is near a school play park and bus shelter used by children;
• o There has never been a conclusive report on the effect of such antenna on young people;
• o There is mixed evidence and that is why the recommendation is not to build these near schools, and as the area is used by young people the same context should apply;
• o There is a childminder's home within 50m of the site;
• o The area is also close to the lake and anyone who knows the area, which the applicants clearly don't, know it is subject to flooding during heavy rain, meaning the cabinets that are to be buried will require constant maintenance and disruptive repair work;
• o There has been no attempt to mast-share with other providers despite this being a requirement of the Council of Ministers from a report of theirs in 2003;

• o The proposed mast will therefore only serve a limited number of people and the customers
• of only one provider;
• o This could set a dangerous precedent for one-upmanship as no provider wants to leave their customers with poorer signals than their competitors;
• o This we have been advised will serve 500 people so this will be the first of many to go up;
• o The talks about mast-sharing with MT should be ongoing and a better solution found to service everyone;
• o There are still large areas that will be unserved by this antenna and so more of these antennas will be required going forwards;
• o From the public consultation undertaken it was clear that those in support are outweighed by those with concerns;
• o The yellow site notice was only displayed one week before the submissions close for letters. This must surely be a breach of planning regulations?;
• o The casing that will sit on top of the lamppost is considerably wider than the lamppost currently there, and the plans show the same diameter all the way down so this lamppost will not look like any of the others, would be considerably wider, and would stick out like a sore thumb across the area;
• o The photographs taken by Sure show the new structure in situ but are taken from up the road so that the new structure looks in line with the others, but this will not be the case;
• o Lampposts are on the majority of our roads and so are a part of most scenes, but to have a broader and taller structure right by the duck pond, which provides a lovely view, will make the
• outlook distorted and ruin that outlook for all the homes overseeing it;
• o It will look incredibly ugly;
• o While I truly believe there is a requirement for better phone signal in the area, to place this mast on the most viewable and most beautiful outlook spot on the estate is ludicrous;
• o We purchased this home as the outlook is gorgeous and that will be ruined with this antenna slap bang in the middle of the estate, stretching above the skyline and viewable from every window

• at the front of our home, dominating the skyline;

• o It is not that this is an antenna that I find objectionable, but rather its size and obtrusive, ugly appearance in the proposed location;
• o I would be interested to learn why the Cat with No Tail fields are not suitable and to see evidence that other areas have been investigated;
• o I have never heard of these antennas being right outside of someone's front door;
• o I have three young children and my husband is currently battling kidney and brain cancer, which is horrifying in itself;
• o This antenna being 30m from my home is a cause for safety concerns for my children (as they need to be about 100m away from schools) but also my husband who, due to the treatment he is undergoing, is potentially more sensitive to the output of such a construction near our home;
• o The antenna will be an eyesore on the main road of the lovely green area of the estate;
• o They should be sited away from residential homes;
• o I truly hope common sense prevails in this matter and that Sure and [Manx] Telecom work to find a solution that helps provide signal, as it appears that a larger antenna away from our homes is the answer to servicing everyone with poor signal;
• o It will be approximately 25m from our bedroom window and the height of the antenna and the addition of large cabinets would spoil the view, which is one reason we bought this property;
• o The area is a recreational one where children play and people walk and feed the ducks;
• o It really doesn't feel like an ideal spot for an antenna;
• o The cabinets will be clearly visible and the mast will not look like an extension to the lamp post but an unsightly blot on the landscape;
• o Regulations state that a mast cannot be within 100m of a school as there is mixed evidence
• on the effect of such antennas on children, but there are children living nearer than this to the proposed mast;
• o Why not find an alternative mast away from houses and avoid the risk?;
• o We are unaware of any other housing estates with masts so close and are concerned that this may set a precedent for further masts and cabinets throughout the estate and other residential

• areas - I recall from the drop-in session that this mast would not provide complete coverage for the entire estate;
• o The siting of cabinets surrounded by a stone wall will be an unsightly addition to the area;
• o The antenna will be a great deal higher than any other structure in the area, making it stand
• out quite considerably;
• o This will not solve the problem of surrounding areas that also suffer weak signal;
• o There is no evidence that the mobile companies have been working together and it is our understanding that they should do;
• o The sheer size of the mast and the walled up boxes required to work them are not in an appropriate setting on Hailwood Avenue and would be best-placed away from residential property;
• o The proposed area is the only green belt area of the estate;
• o Children from Cronk y Berry and Bemahague pass our homes going to and from school and catch buses right next to the suggested location - if these antennas need to be a certain distance from schools, how can it be OK for them to be so near to children's homes and playing areas and bus stops?;
• o Perhaps Sure have failed to fully investigate the flooding in the area and to have this so close to water appears sheer madness;
• o Children like to investigate things - surely accidents could happen, especially so close to the water's edge?;
• o A lot was done to beautify the area when the estate was built, and this will undermine the beauty of the central lake area;
• o The location and imposing construction will be a reminder each time anyone drives or walks past;
• o This will bring down the beauty and character of the estate and will have a long-term detrimental effect on all residents;
• o Another method of improving signal should be chosen.

• 5.6.2 These comments were received from the owner / occupiers of the following dwellings:

• o 11 Orry's Close, Douglas (comments received 8th December 2016 and 28th December

• 2016);

• 21 Hillcroft Green, Douglas (comments received 8th December 2016); o 20 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas (comments received 9th December 2016 and 5th January

• 2017)

• o 22 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas comments received (9th December 2016);
• o 18 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas (comments received 14th December 2016);
• o 5 Belgravia, Douglas (comments received 15th December 2016);
• o 100 Snaefell Road, Douglas (comments received 19th December 2016);
• o 24 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas (comments received 21st December 2016);
• o 14 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas (comments received 22nd December 2016);
• o 10 Hillberry Meadows, Douglas comments received (29th December 2016), and
• o 16 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas (comments received 29th December 2016).

• 5.7.1 Comments have also been received in support of the application from local residents, which are summarised in no particular order below:

• o I wish to fully support this application and have no objection to the location or appearance of the mast;
• o The health implications are negligible;
• o Our children face a far greater danger crossing the road to get to the play park than posed by this mast;
• o Governors Hill desperately needs better mobile signal and I hope this and any other future applications by other providers are approved;
• o For too long the people of Governors Hill have been poorly served by mobile telecommunications as a result of poorly sited masts;
• o It is not good that in this era mobile phone calls have to be made or received on the street;

• o There was a news report that the UK has worse mobile reception than Romania. I find it difficult to understand that a progressive government such as ours has not got the infrastructure for mobile communications established;
• o I hope the application can be successful and we can start living in the 21st century.

• 5.7.2 These comments were received from the owner / occupiers of the following dwellings:

• o 42 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas (comments received 12th December 2016), and
• o 28 Hillberry Heights, Douglas (comments received 15th December 2016).

5.8 The applicants were offered the opportunity to respond to the comments received. Selected extracts from that response are set out below:

"Any Transmitter built in Governors Hill area will be close to someone's home, a minimum distance of 20m for homes is accepted as best practice (Vodafone guidelines) we are adhering to this. There are already antennae as close to homes, in the Isle of Man, as in our proposal. I am unaware of any negative issues associated with the existing installations.

"I have been a regular visitor to Governors hill for 15 years [and] I have never seen that area flood, plus a resident (for 16 years) of Governors hill has no recollection of this area flooding.

"The type of mast required for mast sharing would be significantly larger, taller, wider, that a single user mast we do not feel that the substantial structure required to support multiple operators would be appropriate in this location. We have elected to propose a slim, low visual impact structure.

"We would be happy to revise the wall finish if some other type of finish is felt to be more appropriate to the location.

"This location was carefully selected after reviewing all the practical alternatives, although any location near the lakes adjacent to Hailwood Avenue would be acceptable form a communications standpoint, and we would be happy to move the site to any ware within this area. The replacement of an existing structure was felt [to] offer the best chances of gaining planning approval."

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issue in this case is considered to be the visual impact arising from the proposed works. The level of objection received has focussed on this as a significant concern, with health concerns also being raised. The need for the proposed lamppost mast

6.2 The site is not zoned for telecommunications equipment. However, it must also be borne in mind that very few sites are zoned for such equipment, and accordingly Infrastructure Policy 3 carries significant weight. The information submitted in support of the application by Sure seems to indicate that there is a strong need for better coverage in the area, although it is difficult to evidentially quantify this need. The conclusions, as reached by the Inspector considering the Hillberry reservoir proposal on the principle of telecommunications equipment in areas not zoned for it, are relevant here. The acceptability of this proposal should therefore be reached having regard to the visual impact of the proposed lamppost mast on the local area, with close regard being had to General Policy 2 and Infrastructure Policy 3.

6.3 In the first instance, it is noted that there are no existing masts in the area and as such the expectation of mast-sharing as outlined in IP3 could not be pursued in this area. Moreover, it is also noted that there has been significant concern raised by the users of the applicant's telecommunications services about the availability (or lack thereof) of those services in the area.

• Indeed, this lack of coverage is quite well-known. Even some of the letters of objection have made reference to it. Coverage plans have been provided that demonstrate this. Better coverage in the area is clearly highly desirable, and moreover there is a government steer with regards improved telecommunications access.
• 6.4 Whether or not the proposal responds to a 'need' is a difficult question to answer. On the most basic level, there are very few things that human beings actively need (water, food, shelter, and so forth). It is not within the remit of this report to define what, in modern society, might otherwise be defined as a 'need', but in this case it is considered that the key policy test is whether or not this proposal would, in the words of Infrastructure Policy 3, "satisfy residential and business demand". The evidence submitted with the application, and also the comments received from local residents, is considered such as to mean that there is a clear residential demand for better access to telecommunications networks here, and which can only be met through the siting of a new antenna within the open space of Governors Hill. Visual impact
• 6.5 In terms of the visual impact, it is considered that the argument of the applicant is wellfounded. There can be little doubt that the antenna atop the lamp post will be noticeable, and accordingly that the whole structure itself will be noticeable. It will also be more noticeable than the lampposts in the area because it will be taller - at 10.15m, it will be roughly 2m taller than the existing lampposts. However, this must be seen in the context of the area, which sees a line of lampposts and other street furniture with a vertical emphasis - such as the belisha beacons accompanying the nearby zebra crossing, as well as the bus stop. While the antenna might be more noticeable to residents of the area, it is unlikely that visitors to the area will perceive the difference particularly strongly.
• 6.6 More significantly, though, is the extent to which this 'noticeability' is in itself harmful to the character of the area. The fact that an existing lamppost will be replaced by a structure roughly 25% higher does not make that difference harmful. Being coloured grey will help the structure as a whole blend with the remaining lampposts. It is accepted that the additional height and mass atop the lamppost is not particularly attractive, and it is noted that many people have objected to the appearance of the structure proposed. This is of course a subjective opinion, and such opinions are difficult to quantify, both in terms of residents' views and also when coming to a professional view on a planning application.
• 6.7 That all being said, there is also the argument that the existing lampposts are not particularly attractive. That they form a relatively unnoticed feature in the area (and in general) is no doubt largely a result of their ubiquity on our highways. At the fundamental level, as outlined in General Policy 2 and Infrastructure Policy 3, the test for this application is whether or not the harm that might be said to arise from the installation of the proposed lamppost mast is acceptable in and of itself and also within its streetscene context.
• 6.8 The overall sweep of the lampposts along Hailwood Avenue here will continue much as at present. The lampposts already 'break' the skyline when viewed from ground level, from which position the vast majority of people will see the proposed lamppost mast, and this is considered to be an important point. Were the lampposts seen against existing buildings, and the lamppost mast proposed was tall enough to be seen above those existing buildings, then it might reasonably be considered as more harmful to the character of the area through the introduction of a new manmade structure that could affect views out of the lake-side area. However, in this case the skyline is already broken by the existing dwellings and lampposts such that an additional 2m of height atop one of those lampposts could not be said to be of such significant harm to the existing area as to warrant the application's refusal.
• 6.9 The open nature of the grassland and water is in some ways defined by the existence of the surrounding houses. It is a wholly different situation to that in respect of the Hillberry Reservoir site

• in that, although there is an openness here, it is clearly for public access / use and is related to the dwellings that fully enclose it. The land is not countryside. Accordingly, any argument that it should be protected for its own sake would ignore the Local Plan zoning.
• 6.10 The site is located near to grass, trees and open water: it is an attractive setting that provides a welcome backdrop to the built environment in the area and also as an area for children playing, dog-walking, duck-feeding and so forth. Not many residential estates on the Island benefit from such a feature. The Inspector in consideration of the proposed mast at Hillberry Reservoir found the proposed mast in that case to be contrary to the aims of that policy, noting that the industrial nature of the structure would adversely affect the open setting of the countryside. The Inspector did not find that the structure would affect the use of the nearby Centenary Park, but he did find that it would affect its appearance.
• 6.11 Insofar as this conclusion is material to the assessment of this application, then, the proposed lamppost mast would need to be concluded to be significantly inappropriate in visual terms to also be considered contrary to Recreation Policy 2. In view of the foregoing assessment, it is not concluded that the mast is of such a size, structure, form or position as to be harmful to the area, and therefore it also follows that it is not contrary to RP2.
• 6.12 Though there seem, on the basis of the comments of the applicant, to be a large number of positions the mast could be located within the open grassed area, the best approach would indeed seem to be replacing an existing structure with one of suitable visual impact. While it is not necessarily the role of planning applications to decide where new development should be located, that which is proposed here is not considered inappropriate for the reasons set out above.
• 6.13 The intention to essentially encase the equipment cabinets in natural stone-filled gabion baskets will add to this existing character, which satisfactorily balances the natural and artificial nature of the area. Comments have been received that a stone structure is inappropriate for the area and these are understood to a degree inasmuch as there is no stonework present at the moment. However, stone is a natural material and one commonly found near water. This is not considered to be a reason to refuse the application and, indeed, is considered welcome in screening the equipment cabinets from public view. These cabinets are perhaps the most alien element of the proposal owing to their being manmade and entirely unalike anything else in the area. They are fairly small-scale, however, and the stone wall proposed will provide a welcome screen for these cabinets.
• 6.14 The proposed lamppost mast will certainly be more noticeable than the existing lampposts. However, given the above, it is concluded that the effect of the additional height and mass of the lamppost proposed here is not so significant as to warrant the application's refusal, particularly when balanced against the clear need for better coverage in the area. To conclude on this point:

• o the lamppost mast is not considered to be visually intrusive;
• o the proposed lamppost mast is considered to respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• o the proposed lamppost mast is not considered to affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• o the site is not in a sensitive landscape as defined in any particular policy document, and
• o there is no opportunity for mast-sharing to address the identified need.

6.15 Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposal complies with the relevant extracts of GP2 and IP3 with regards visual impact. - 6.16 Infrastructure Policy 3 also suggests that the removal of redundant telecommunications equipment should be considered. As noted, there are no existing masts in the area that the applicant could utilise. That being said, the retention of redundant infrastructure should be prevented where necessary. A condition requiring the mast's and equipment cabinets' and stone

wall's removal in the event that the telecommunications equipment is no longer needed is recommended accordingly.

Health impacts

6.17 While it has been held in the UK courts that the concern regarding the impact of a proposal such as this on health can be a material consideration in an officer's assessment, the weight to be given to this concern depends in each case. It is also true that every application should be determined on its own merits and without prejudice to other decisions made elsewhere, albeit that regard can certainly be had to proposals, their impacts, and the manner of their assessment. - 6.18 While there have been comments received that raise concern with regards the health impacts of the proposal, it is right that the view of the Director of Public Health be given significant weight. She has stated that the proposal is acceptable from a public health point of view, and that no further investigation or assessment is required. - 6.19 Accordingly, there is no reason that the application should be refused on health grounds. Other matters - 6.20 In respect of other matters raised in the representations, Members will be aware that while there is no right to a view in Planning terms, it is reasonable for people to not have their outlooks unacceptably affected by proposed works. In this case, and having visited inside one of the Hailwood Avenue properties, it is noted that the additional height of the lamppost mast over that of the existing lamppost will break the skyline when it is viewed from the uppermost floors. Below that level, the existing lampposts already break the skyline. While it has been accepted that the structure proposed is not particularly attractive, the view has also been reached that it will not result in undue harm to this particular townscape, even if it is noted that the area is characterised as much by its natural as its human-made character. On this basis, and noting the narrow width of the structure proposed (in the overall context of the outlook available to dwellings immediately facing the application site), it is not considered that the mast would result in an unduly harmful impact on existing outlooks. - 6.21 Concern regarding the impact of a proposed development on property prices is also not a material consideration. - 6.22 The issue of flooding is not considered to be a major concern. The biggest risk in this case is the effect of rising water on the proposed development. The applicant has considered the issue, and in this case there is a clear business need for them to have done so. It seems unlikely that the proposed development could exacerbate any pre-existing flooding issues (should any even exist) since the additional amount of hardstanding proposed is minimal. Accordingly, this does not represent a reason to refuse the application.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be approved, subject to conditions. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and

• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

• 8.2.1 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
• 8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do have sufficient interest and should therefore be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

• o The Director of Public Health;
• o The owner / occupier of 14 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas, who live nearby and can see the application site from within their dwelling;
• o The owner / occupier of 18 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas, who live nearby and can see the application site from within their dwelling;
• o The owner / occupier of 20 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas, who live nearby and can see the application site from within their dwelling;
• o The owner / occupier of 22 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas, who live nearby and can see the application site from within their dwelling,
• o The owner / occupier of 16 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas, who live nearby and can see the application site from within their dwelling; and
• o The owner / occupier of 24 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas, who live nearby and can see the application site from within their dwelling.

• 8.2.3 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should therefore not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

• o The Fisheries Directorate of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture, which is within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate;
• o The owner / occupier of 5 Belgravia, Douglas, who lives too far from the application site to be affected by the proposed development;
• o The owner / occupier of 10 Hillberry Meadows, Douglas, who lives too far from the application site to be affected by the proposed development;
• o The owner / occupier of 11 Orry's Close, Douglas, who lives too far from the application site to be affected by the proposed development;
• o The owner / occupier of 21 Hillcroft Green, Douglas, who lives too far from the application site to be affected by the proposed development
• o The owner / occupier of 28 Hillberry Heights, Douglas, who lives too far from the application site to be affected by the proposed development;
• o The owner / occupier of 42 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas, who lives too far from the application site to be affected by the proposed development, and
• o The owner / occupier of 100 Snaefell Road, Douglas, who lives too far from the application site to be affected by the proposed development.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.01.2017 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. In the event that the mast and equipment cabinets hereby approved become redundant or are no longer needed, the mast and equipment cabinets and stone walls hereby approved shall be removed within a period of 90 days. Reason: In the interest of protecting the character and appearance of the area.
• C 3. The lamppost mast hereby approved shall, within 28 days of its installation, be coloured grey to match the existing lampposts on Hailwood Avenue unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department. Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the area.

The development hereby approved relates to the following drawings, all date-stamped as having been received 12th December 2016: 24/010C, 24/012E, 24/013E, 24/014C and 24/015C.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:…06.02.2017

Signed :…………E RILEY………….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

Planning Committee Decision 06.02.2017

Application No. : 16/01291/B Applicant : Sure (IOM) Ltd Proposal : Replacement of an existing lamp post with an antenna topped lamp post with associated equipment cabinets Site Address : Sure Site, Near Junction With Lakeside Road Hailwood Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley (correct manually if not the case officer)

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

Members considered it appropriate to also award Interested Person Status to the owner / occupier of 5 Belgravia, Douglas.

Reason for Refusal/Conditions of Approval Delete as appropriate

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. In the event that the mast and equipment cabinets hereby approved become redundant or are no longer needed, the mast and equipment cabinets and stone walls hereby approved shall be removed within a period of 90 days. Reason: In the interest of protecting the character and appearance of the area.
• C 3. The lamppost mast hereby approved shall, within 28 days of its installation, be coloured grey to match the existing lampposts on Hailwood Avenue unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department. Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the area.

The development hereby approved relates to the following drawings, all date-stamped as having been received 12th December 2016: 24/010C, 24/012E, 24/013E, 24/014C and 24/015C.