Agenda item

Installation of a telescopic amateur radio mast.

The committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of the responses to the application.

The Development Management Team Leader (PB) introduced the report.  He explained that the application was for the installation of a telescopic amateur radio mast.

The Chair invited Richard Ware, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Mr Ware expressed his real anger at the aerial which had been erected in his neighbour’s garden without planning consent.  He considered it an eyesore which, despite being retractable, remained elevated and overlooking his house and garden at all times.

In addition to the visual impact, Mr Ware was concerned about the interference he had experienced with his home television.

The Chair invited Trevor Clapp to speak in support of the application.  Mr Clapp advised that he was a fellow radio operator and was speaking on behalf of the applicant.  He

described the types and timings of events and competitions used by radio operators.  These required different aerials depending on the frequency.  Mr Clapp exhibited an aerial to the committee.

Addressing the issues raised by Mr Ware, Mr Clapp advised that any interference to television and broadband was a matter for Ofcom to consider.  The applicant would assist with any investigation.  On the question of appearance, Mr Clapp stated that the advice of the Radio Society of Great Britain was that aerials should be sited high up and away from people wherever possible.

The Chair invited comments from the committee.

Members of the committee sympathised with Mr Ware, concurring with the view that the aerial was ugly and intrusive.  Although an assessment of the aerial’s appearance was subjective, committee members considered that it adversely affected the street scene, having a harmful visual impact.  It was out of character with the local area. 

The committee noted that imposing conditions on usage days and times would be difficult to enforce.

The Development Management Team Leader outlined a previous application some 20 years ago which had been rejected by the committee.  The decision had been overturned subsequently on appeal by the inspector. 

Despite this, committee members considered that the decision should be tested again in the face of considerable opposition from local residents.  Should the decision go to appeal, the Council could include suggested conditions in the event that the inspector was minded to overturn the committee’s decision.

The Chair invited Councillor Sharpe to propose a motion to refuse the application.

Councillor Sharpe proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed mast, due to its height when extended and the size of the proposed aerials, would appear as a visually prominent and intrusive feature on the skyline and would consequently have a harmful impact on the streetscene and the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposed mast, due to its height when extended and the size of the proposed aerials, will appear as a visually prominent and intrusive feature on the skyline and will consequently have a harmful impact on the streetscene and the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-31.