The Development Management Manager delivered his report.

        The Chair then invited Mr Andrew Mortimer to address the committee.

        Mr Mortimer opened by stating that he was speaking on behalf of a number of local residents.  He realised that we needed faster and more efficient telecommunications, but cited the refusal some years ago, of the mast application at the junction of Ridgeway and Courtlands Drive. 

        He asked if the consultation for this application was properly completed for all the adjacent roads, as he had been informed that this was not the case. 

        He went on to say that regrettably a number of gateway roads to Watford had buildings that he described as gruesome.  He compared these to the multiple masts and associated cabinets at the junction of Hempstead Road and Courtlands Drive. 

        He stated that although the health concerns were not eligible to be considered, he asked if the radiation from these masts was cumulative or exponential and reminded the committee that the drug Thalidomide was not considered dangerous until the appalling birth defects were realised. 

        Mr Mortimer accepted that the new 5G masts needed to be larger and taller, but asked what of the next generation of masts, will they be taller still?  He asked the committee to refuse the application and go back to the applicant and ask them to develop a mast that could be fitted to street lamps. 

        The Chair thanked Mr Mortimer and asked the Development Management Manager to comment on two areas, the refusal of the Ridgeway/Courtlands Drive application and the suggestion that the consultation was not complete. 

        Regarding the refusal of the historic application, the Development Management Manager stated that because it was some time ago, he could not recall exactly why it was refused, but pointed out that the field of telecommunications and wireless internet had moved on considerably, with considerable support and drive from central government. In fact this was to such an extent, that he felt any referral to this old application was no longer relevant. 

        The Development Management Manager stated that letters had been sent to between 35 and 45 nearby properties for each of the recent applications.  Normal planning procedures had been followed. 

        The Chair thanked the Development Management Manager and passed the matter to the committee for discussion.

        Concern was expressed that a Liquid Amber ‘show tree’, funded by local councillors and planted near the site, would be lost. 

        There was general concern about the number of masts at this site. The question was asked if this site had been chosen to avoid the Cassiobury Estate and the associated covenants.

        The Development Management Manager stated that he was unable to comment on this particular tree, but larger and more mature trees would normally be protected.  He pointed out that there were three masts within the Cassiobury Estate. 

        He was also asked if this site with its number of masts was unique in Watford. He pointed out that there were three masts on Hempstead Road at its junction with Langley Road.  With a total of 70 base stations in the borough, some other areas in Watford had a multiple masts although these were often sited on tall buildings.  So in that respect, with three 20 metre masts, he considered this area was unique.  This application would be the eighth 5G mast in Watford. 

        A number of questions were put to the Development Management Manager:

·        Can we put a restriction on any more masts at this site?

·        Would the visual impact of this mast be sufficient reason to refuse the application?

·        What is a “reasonable time” for removal of obsolete masts and can we force this?

·        How much leeway do we have in moving the suggested location of the mast?

·        The officer’s report mentioned that the location of the proposed mast was moved because of technical issues, could it be sited elsewhere?

The officer explained that because 5G masts were a permitted development and fully support by central government, our powers were extremely limited to restrict or refuse masts. 

He pointed out that because this would be only the eighth 5G mast in Watford, it was doubtful the network was yet operational.  So the old mast would likely still be in use and could not yet be removed. 

The siting of masts was a highly technical matter to form a continuous cellular network.  Accordingly, councils could not determine where masts were to be sited.  Furthermore, with no tall buildings nearby, even if it was to be moved, it would be onto a residential road and potentially closer to residential properties.  It was difficult to think of a better location in that area.  The Development Management Manager pointed out that due to the tree cover, it was very difficult to see the masts as you travelled into Watford, the view was really upon exiting the town. 

The officer concluded by explaining that the previous possible location was only 10 to 12 metres away and the proposed location was probably moved due to various underground services in the area. 

The committee expressed concern about the appearance of the area, which was described as a blight on the streetscene.  This prompted a discussion on ways to conceal and camouflage the visual impact of the proposed mast. 

The Development Management Manager explained that a few years ago, some masts were disguised as trees; but this was no longer seen as a solution and such masts had been received with some derision in planning circles, as they were often more prominent than standard masts.  The current thinking was to make the masts as slim as possible, but he accepted that masts were getting bigger. 

The Chair pointed out that paragraph 115 of the NPPF stated that numbers of masts and sites should be kept to a minimum and camouflaged where appropriate.  He suggested that the mast be painted in two colours, a dark green on the lower section to blend in with the trees and a lighter blue/grey to blend in with the sky for the top antenna section. 

The Development Management Manager showed the committee a CGI of the proposed two-tone mast, stating that the applicant was happy to paint the mast in two colours.  This suggestion was positively received by the committee.

The Chair moved that prior approval be granted subject to the conditions contained within the officer’s report and noting the updated ICNIRP Compliance Certificate, as detailed in the update sheet.  Additionally to incorporate the recommendation for the two-tone mast.

RESOLVED –

that, prior approval be granted subject to the following conditions and the addition that the mast shall be painted in two colours to better blend in with the surroundings:          

Conditions

1.    The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of five years commencing on the date of this permission.

2.    The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

Master Drawing No. 941969_WFD009_50707_WD0094_M002B

002 Site Location Plan

003 Access Plan

005 Cherry Picker and Crane Location

100 Existing Site Plan

150 Existing Elevation A

215 Proposed Site Plan

265 Proposed Site Elevation

3.    The mast pole shall be coloured Sherwood Green (BS 12 D 45) and the antennas coloured light grey (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and shall be retained as such at all times.