The Development Management Manager delivered his report and referred the members to the update sheet that supplemented the report. 

The Chair thanked the officer and invited the Ward Councillor, Councillor Tim Williams to address the committee.

Councillor Williams accepted the modern day requirements of good data and mobile phone connectivity and that this was fully supported by central government.  He also accepted that to achieve this a network of masts was required.  However, he pointed out that the government accepted the masts were not attractive and so encouraged mitigations. These could include mast sharing, proving the requirement of the mast and that the appearance and siting of the mast should not have any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the locality. 

Councillor Williams noted that whilst the applicant’s paperwork stated that mast sharing and alternative sites were considered, there appears to be no evidence that this had actually occurred.  He had requested a detailed report during the consultation period, but this had not been forthcoming.  He asked whether the Council had sought such a report from the applicant. 

Councillor Williams questioned why the mast could not be sited alongside the mast that was already situated adjacent to the nearby petrol station and expressed his view that it would have been better to mast share or site next to an existing mast. 

He felt that the mast would be a blot on the landscape and have a significant adverse impact on the locality.  He criticised the applicant for their standard application, with no thought as to the particular impact this mast would cause. 

Councillor Williams concluded by asking the committee to refuse the application on the grounds that its prominent siting, scale and height, would result in a highly visual and unduly obtrusive development.  This would impact on the visual amenity of the area and the outlook of the nearby residential properties and fail to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework 2021. 

The Chair thanked Councillor Williams and asked the Development Management Manager to address the issue of mast sharing.

The Development Management Manager explained that in the past, operators had shared masts and this was still the case in many areas across the country.  However, the requirement for faster data speeds and greater volumes of data, meant that masts had become taller.  The current 5G mast were 20 metres tall and a shared mast would need to be still taller.  Furthermore, the 5G network required masts to be closer together than in the past as due to the higher volumes of data, the signal range was reduced.  This meant that in order to fill an existing gap in the network coverage, the options for siting this mast were limited and there were no suitable masts nearby to share. 

In response to a question, the Development Management Manager confirmed that it was a requirement for operators to consider mast or site sharing. 

It was acknowledged that there were limited options for the committee to refuse the application, as only the matters of siting and appearance could be considered.  It was pointed out that this site would have been selected for sound technical reasons.  Whilst it was easy to envisage a worse site, it was rather more difficult to think of a better site in the immediate vicinity. 

There was a brief discussion around the best colour scheme for the mast. 

The Chair then moved the officer’s recommendation that prior approval be granted as set out in Section 8 of the officer’s report. 

RESOLVED –

that, prior approval be granted subject to the following conditions:   

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. WFD19881_PLANNING_REV_A

002 Site Location Plan

005 Crane Location

100 Existing Site Plan

150 Existing Site Elevation

215 Proposed Site Plan

265 Proposed Site Elevation

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

Prior to item 5 on the agenda, the Democratic Services Officer advised the committee that having looked at the Council’s constitution and carefully considered the matter, his opinion was that Councillor Watkin should also exclude himself from the discussions on Cassiobury School. 

Accordingly, Councillor Watkin and the Chair left the Chamber, with the

Chair having handed the Chairmanship of the meeting to the Vice-Chair, Councillor Martins.