LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Date : 18th June 2013

Report of Assistant Director - Planning, Highways & Transportation

Contact Officer: Andy Higham Tel: 020 8379 3848 Sharon Davidson Tel: 020 8379 3841 Mr C. Ahmet Tel: 020 8379 3926

Ward: Cockfosters

Application Number : P13-01147PLA

Category: Telecommunications

LOCATION: 14, CRESCENT WEST, BARNET, EN4 0EJ PROPOSAL: Increase height of existing pole to maximum height of 17.55m, replacement of 3 antennas and 2 equipment cabinets. Applicant Name & Address: everywhere everywhere Ltd 14, CRESCENT WEST, BARNET, EN4 0EJ

Agent Name & Address: Daly International (UK) Ltd Dukesbridge Chambers Berkshire Reading Duke Street UK RG1 4SA

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission is GRANTED subject to conditions Note for Members Although an application of this nature would normally be determined under delegated authority, Councillor McCannah has requested that it be determined by Planning Committee due to concerns raised by local residents.

Application No:- P13-01147PLA

TCB

SL

El Sub Sta

14

SL

33

Dra

in

Lawn Tennis Club

49

88.7m

8

12

1 to 9

30

Lodge

BA

RTR

AM

S L

AN

E

12

Monken Mead Brook

Gables

Tennis Courts

Hadley Wood Station

MP .5

34

48

Hadley Wood

LB

Playing Field

10

CRESCENT W

EST

90.5m

40

ALD

ER

WO

OD

ME

WS

14

1 t o

6

Development Control

Scale - 1:1250Time of plot: 08:00 Date of plot: 05/06/2013

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150m

© Crown copyright. London Borough of Enfield LA086363,2003

1 Site and Surroundings 1.1 The application site comprises a three storey block of flats in the Hadley wood

Local Shopping Centre. There is an existing telecommunications mast, in the form of a flagpole, and associated equipment located on the roof of the building.

1.2 The area is predominantly suburban in character with residential uses to the

north, south and west. Hadley Wood station is located immediately to the east, with further residential uses beyond.

1.3 The site adjoins the Hadley Wood Conservation Area. 2 Proposal 2.1 The proposal seeks planning permission to upgrade the existing

telecommunications installation to meet the Applicants obligation to provide better coverage and levels of service to its users. The proposals comprise the following works:

Increase height of existing flagpole by 600mm; Replace 3no. existing antennae with 3no. new antennae; 2no.equipment cabinets

3 Relevant Planning History 3.1 In 2004 telecommunications equipment was installed on the roof of the

building in the form of a flagpole and associated equipment. The telecommunications company involved believed the works to constitute permitted development as the flagpole was not to exceed 4m in height. Following concerns raised by local residents the matter was investigated and a report was taken to the 24 June 2004 Planning Committee wherein it was determined that:

The installation was a “mast” for the purposes of Part 24 of the

General Permitted Development Order. That planning permission was therefore required by virtue of

A1(k) of Part 24 in that the mast was sited within 20 metres of a highway

That it was not expedient to take enforcement action and therefore no further action would be taken.

3.2 It would also appear that the flagpole installed was in fact 4.5m and not 4m as

originally stated by the telecommunications company. 3.3 Since the installation of the mast currently in situ, there has been only one

further planning application made. This proposed the installation of two telecommunications flagpoles (including total of 3 antennas) mounted to the rear elevation to a total height of 2 metres above the roof; together with four associated equipment cabinets located at ground level at the rear in the car park area.(TP/05/1372) Planning permission was refused for on 14-Oct-2005 for the following reasons:

1 The proposed telecommunications flagpoles by virtue of its appearance, height and siting would not preserve or enhance the appearance and setting of the adjacent Conservation Area contrary to Policies (II)C30, and (II)G20 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed telecommunications flagpoles, due to their appearance, height and siting, will add to the visual clutter of the building, to the detriment of the street scene and to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD1 and (II)EN6 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4. Consultations 4.1 Statutory and non-statutory consultees Biodiversity Officer 4.1.1 The Biodiversity Officer confirms that the proposals do not pose any

ecological constraints and therefore does not object. Duchy of Lancaster 4.1.2 The Duchy of Lancaster’s Officer raises no objections to the proposals. 4.2 Public 4.2.1 Consultation letters have been sent to 14 neighbouring properties and a site

notice has been displayed. To date the Council has received 7 letters of objection raising the following concerns:

Flagpole mast with its equipment on a platform covers most of the

blocks roof and they are visible and unsightly even from a distance; Current mast and equipment was erected on the roof without any

planning permission; Ofcom Site finder website states that the current height of the

antenna is 16.85m rather than 15.65m as stated on the submitted plans, suggesting that the current mast is over 4 metres in height;

Consider that the ground for refusing application TP/05/1372 remain valid to this case;

Plans submitted by applicant is not entirely accurate; Majority of equipment on roof cannot be moved and this has had a

direct impact upon maintenance of roof; The installation of the mast was carried out in breach of the The Party

Wall Act 1996; Substantial water ingress and collapse of part of the roof has

occurred in recent years and made repairs difficult; Health risks associated with the masts is a major concern; Located within 200m of Hadley Wood Primary School; Council should consider taking enforcement action against the current

mast; Such installations are more appropriate on land rather than residential

buildings; Coverage of the area is already sufficiently catered for; Visually dominant and obtrusive structure which is detrimental to the

appearance of the building and adjacent conservation area;

The existing telecommunications mast at Bartrams Lane would be much more suitable as it is not close to residential housing.

Devalues properties

5. Relevant Policy 5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012

allowed local planning authorities a 12 month transition period to prepare for the full implementation of the NPPF. Within this 12 month period local planning authorities could give full weight to the saved UDP policies and the Core Strategy, which was adopted prior to the NPPF. The 12 month period has now elapsed and as from 28th March 2013 the Council's saved UDP and Core Strategy policies will be given due weight in accordance to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

5.2 The Development Management Document (DMD) policies have been

prepared under the NPPF regime to be NPPF compliant. The Submission version DMD document was approved by Council on 27th March 2013 for submission to the Secretary of State for examination. Examination and subsequent adoption is expected later this year. The DMD provides detailed criteria and standard based policies by which planning applications will be determined.

5.3 The policies listed below are considered to be consistent with the NPPF and

therefore it is considered that due weight should be given to them in assessing the development the subject of this application.

5.4 The London Plan

Policy 4.11 Encouraging a connected economy Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.5 Public realm Policy 7.6 Architecture

5.5 Local Plan – Core Strategy

CP30 Maintaining and improving the quality of the built and open

environment CP31 Built and landscape heritage

5.6 Saved UDP Policies

(II)GD3 High standard of functional and aesthetic design (II)EN6 Telecoms

(II)C30 Development in or adjacent to conservation areas. 5.7 Submission version - Development Management Document Policies (DMD)

DMD37 Achieving High Quality and Design-Led Development DMD44 Preserving and enhancing heritage assets

5.8 Other relevant policy National Planning Policy Framework: Paragraph 5. Supporting high quality communications infrastructure

Hadley Wood Conservation Area Character Appraisal

6. Analysis 6.1 The main issues to be considered are:

The impact on the character of the area, including the setting of the Hadley Wood Conservation Area; and

The impact on amenity of neighbouring residents. 6.2 Impact on character of the area 6.2.1 The applicant has indicated that the increase in height of the existing flagpole,

replacement of the existing antennas and provision of 2no. equipment cabinets is necessary in order to meet current technical and service level standards.

6.2.2 The additional 600mm proposed would be achieved by attaching steel frames

to the bottom of the existing flagpole and then mounted to a concrete base. The flagpole length would itself remain unchanged. The antennae comprised within the shroud of the flagpole would also be replaced although this would not appear to increase the existing width. It should also be noted that the siting of the mast would not be altered. Compared to the existing visual appearance of the flagpole installation on the character of the area, it is considered that the increase in height and new antennae would not have any undue impact on the main views of the site from the east and west along Crescent West, or on the setting of the Conservation Area.

6.2.3 With regard to the existing 3 antennae, these are not currently visible from

pavement level or in wider views along Crescent West. Therefore, it is considered that the replacement of 3 no. existing antennae with 3 no. new antennae, to be mounted on a steel frame structure adjacent to the flagpole, would cause no additional harm to existing views or the character of the area, including the setting of the Conservation Area.

6.2.4 The addition of 2no. equipment cabinets each measuring 600mm x 480mm x

900mm and located side by side on a concrete plinth in the middle/centre of the existing roof would not be visible within any street views. Therefore, in this respect it is considered that the impact of the cabinets on the character and appearance of the area is acceptable.

6.2.5 With regard to the addition of ancillary/supporting electrical equipment such

as cables, it is considered that these would by virtue of their size and location be unseen in the wider surroundings.

6.2.6 Overall, having regard to the existing installation and the size, siting and

design of the proposals, it is considered that impact of the changes would have negligible affect on the existing integrity of the parent building and the general character of the area including the setting of the Conservation Area. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposals would comply with Policies (II) GD3, (II) EN6 and (II)C30 of the UDP; Policy 30 and 31 of the Core Strategy; Policy 37 and 44 of the Submission Version DMD and advice contained in the NPPF.

6.3 Impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents

6.3.1 Apart from the visual impact of the proposals on the character of the area as

discussed above, neighbouring residents have also raised concerns relating to the impact on public health from mast radiation; the damage that the current installation has caused to the roof of the building; how the installation has breached The Party Wall Act and that the Council should seek to enforce against the existing installation.

6.3.2 With regard to public health concerns, it remains the view of the Government

that if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them. The applicant has submitted an ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) certificate with the application confirming compliance.

6.3.3 This conclusion is also consistent with advice contained in the National

Planning Policy Framework which states that:

“They (local planning authorities) should not question the need for the telecommunications system, or determine health safeguards if the proposal meets International Commission guidelines for public exposure.”

6.3.4 The damage caused to the existing roof, particularly concerns in relation to

water ingress, and the alleged breach of the Party Wall Act are each matters beyond the control and/or remit of this Council.

6.3.5 In consideration of neighbour requests to take enforcement action against the

existing flagpole installation. This was considered by the Council in 2004 and the Planning Committee resolved that it would not be expedient to take enforcement action. It would now be unlawful for the Council to take retrospective action. This matter cannot now be revisited and this application must be assessed on its own individual merits.

6.3.5 Overall, it is considered on balance that the effect on neighbouring amenities

is not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.. 7. Conclusion 7.1 The Council is committed to supporting the development and upgrade of

telecommunication installations provided no demonstrable harm is caused to either the character of the Borough or the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. This approach is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework wherein it states:

“Advanced, high quality communications infrastructure is essential for sustainable economic growth. The development of high speed broadband technology and other communications networks also plays a vital role in enhancing the provision of local community facilities and services.”

7.1 Moreover, local planning authorities it advises:

“should not impose a ban on new telecommunications development in certain areas, impose blanket Article 4 directions over a wide area or a wide range of

telecommunications development or insist on minimum distances between new telecommunications development and existing development”.

7.2 In this instance, it is considered that the proposed upgrade of the existing installation would have a minimal impact on the character of the area and the amenities of local residents. Planning permission is accordingly recommended for approval for the following reason:

1. The proposals would not adversely impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the setting of the adjoining Hadley Wood Conservation Area having regard to Policies (II) EN6, (II) GD3 and (II)C30 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policies CP30 and CP31 of the Core Strategy, Policies 37 or 44 of the Submission Version DMD and Policies 7.1 and 7.4 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8. Recommendation 8.1 That planning permission is GRANTED with the following conditions:

1. Time Limit 2. Development in accordance with submitted plans