Report to: PLANNING COMMITTEE Date of Meeting: 8th February 2017

Subject: DC/2016/02400Hightown Telephone Exchange Lower Alt Road, Hightown

Proposal: Prior notification procedure for the erection of a 21m high lattice telecommunications tower supporting three antennas, two transmission dishes, two equipment cabinets, one meter cabinet and ancillary works including a 2.1m high palisade fence to the compound

Applicant:CTIL and Vodaphone

Limited

Agent: Mr Jamaal HafizClarke Telecom Limited

Ward: Manor Ward

SummaryThe proposal is ‘permitted development’. The prior approval procedure means that the principle of development is not an issue and only factors of siting and appearance can be considered. Other sites have been assessed by the applicants and have been discounted for a variety of reasons. It is recommended that approval be given.

This application was deferred by Planning Committee of 18th January 2017 at the request of the applicant on the basis that they wished to assess another site in Hightown. Recommendation: Prior Approval Required and given Case Officer Mrs Carol Gallagher

Email planning.department@sefton.gov.uk

Telephone 0345 140 0845 (option 4)

Application documents and plans available at:http://pa.sefton.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OI4I0RNW01H00

Site Location Plan

The SiteThe application site is a British Telecom building known as Hightown Telephone Exchange and is located on Lower Alt Road, Hightown.

History - None

ConsultationsNatural EnglandNo objection

Environmental HealthNo objection

Highways Development DesignNo objection

Network RailNo response

Tree Officer

Trees to the rear of the site are covered by a group Tree Preservation Order but as the proposed mast and associated compound will be 7+ metres away at the nearest point, there is no objection.

Neighbour RepresentationsObjectionsA petition of 402 Sefton residents opposed to the mast. The petition is on the grounds of: mast will be in the centre of the village green which is a protected area the mast will tower over the village three alternative sites have been offered to the applicants – these sites give applicants

the option of a better site without any visual impact on our village

Letter of objection from Hightown Parish Council: out of character in rural village setting, seriously detrimental to the visual aspect of village green, will overpower village by its size and adversely affect the privacy of a large number of businesses nearby, devalue properties, potential health risks.Letter of objection from St Stephens Parochial Church Council: concern over visual impact and height, proximity to the village green, detrimental to outlook of many properties, “shadow’ effect so signal in village centre may not be greatly improved.

143 individual letters opposed to the mast with most signing the petition as well.Main objections are listed under siting and appearance, and other key issues.

Siting Would ruin aesthetics of historic pretty village green where many visitors stop Small village predominantly two storey buildings This location affects more people than anywhere else Close to where children catch buses/ train to and from school Mast’s location should not be residential and should be as discreet as possible Would impact in a very negative way on village life and atmosphere Siting decided arbitrarily on the sole ground of price

Possible alternative sitesMany alternatives were suggested, most frequently the Altcar Training Camp, but also the yacht club, sports grounds, other sites away from residential area.

Appearance The British Telecommunications building is an eyesore today – a mast would be worse The tower would be an eyesore greeting everyone entering or leaving the village 3 times the height of any other structure in Hightown - would tower over all the houses

and spoil current views Would spoil the traditional look of the village - monstrous eyesore Ugly – suggest a faux tree (similar to Hightown Composting site near The Pheasant) –

design impact Gives an industrial estate impression Our precious community would be blemished with such a grotesque eyesore Ridiculous to place a mast in heart of a village Visual impact from my garden and surrounding area is horrendous.

Other issues:

Health No supporting evidence which addresses any of the health concerns - ICNIRP does

not certify any such claim Concern it will cause cancer Concern over health and wellbeing of family Threatens health of a community Will there be a low frequency buzzing noise? Exposure to radio frequency radiation Would prefer a poor reception to a hideous health hazard.

Need Want a better signal but not at the cost of blighting the village and causing

unnecessary distress to local residents when other better sites are available Would provide improved telecommunications at the expense of a local community.

Aviation Mast is within 3km of the Altcar Training Camp where helicopters land and the Ince

Blundell Airstrip

Wildlife Concern about bat colony and rare red squirrels

Financial Property prices will suffer – there are numerous empty fields Cheapest option chosen by people who do not live in village

Human Rights Act Right to enjoyment of property.

Support4 letters of support from local residents making the following comments: Hightown is a mobile blackspot best location for the mast cannot have an electricity smart meter as poor signal safety concerns as mobile blackspot for emergency situations visual intrusion is minimal in comparison to the benefits gained.

A further comment supported the need for a new mast “but in a location that would be preferable to everybody”.

Policy ContextThe application site is in an area designated as residential on the Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan. The policies in the emerging Local Plan (June 2016) were subject to discussion at the recent Local Plan Examination and where appropriate have been given weight in coming to a recommendation on this application.Those policies to which there was no objection or to which no modifications have been proposed may be regarded to carry significant weight. They will be referred to where appropriate in the assessment of this proposal.

Assessment of the ProposalThis application is submitted under the Prior Notification Procedure. This means that the principle of the mast is considered acceptable.

The applicant is advising the Council that they intend to erect a mast under “permitted development rights”.

For telecommunications development the General Permitted Development Order 2015 requires the developer to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required in relation to the siting and appearance of the development.

The Local Planning Authority has 56 days to make a decision, if no decision is made, approval is given by default. However the applicant has requested and the LPA has agreed in writing to a later date for determining the application.

The subsequent 2016 General Permitted Development Amendment Order does not remove the opportunity to agree a later date for determining the application.

The Local Planning Authority by law is only entitled to assess siting and appearance.

Other matters such as health impacts, the need for the mast, the effect on wildlife and financial considerations, are not up for debate as part of this procedure.

National Planning Policy FrameworkThe starting point for assessing the proposed telecommunications tower is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as set out in paragraphs 45 and 46:

45. Applications for telecommunications development (including for prior approval under Part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order) should be supported by the necessary evidence to justify the proposed development.

This should include:- the outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed

development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed near a school or college or within a statutory safeguarding zone surrounding an aerodrome or technical site; and

- for an addition to an existing mast or base station, a statement that self-certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Committee on non-ionising radiation protection guidelines; or

- for a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met.

46. Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for the telecommunications system, or determine health safeguards if the proposal meets International Commission guidelines for public exposure".

As part of the proposal the applicant has submitted a certificate to certify that emissions will not exceed the levels recommended by the International Commission. Therefore the

application cannot be refused consent on the grounds of the perceived risk of the proposal to health.

The applicant has provided evidence which meets all the above criteria.

Unitary Development PlanIn assessing the impact of the mast the requirements of Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy MD8 is also a relevant consideration.

The only additional requirements of the policy beyond what is set out in the NPPF is set out in section 1:

"1. Proposals for telecommunication development will be permitted provided that all the following criteria are met:

(a) the scale, siting, design and external appearance of apparatus and any associated structures would not have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity and character of the surrounding landscape or street scene”.

However, the General Permitted Development Order is much more recent and must take precedence. This report must therefore limit its consideration to siting and appearance. Siting

The location of the proposed mast is within the original village of Hightown, to the rear of the existing British Telecom Exchange building.

The applicants make the following statement in support of the siting of their proposal:

‘The site has been chosen in this location as it is located on private land, where the majority of the installation will be screened from view to the north, east and west by the existing mature trees. Views from the south will also be restricted by the building mass of the BT Exchange building to the south of the proposed installation’.

‘Siting a radio base station on the roadside would be far more prominent and out of keeping within the street scene than this proposed location’.

‘The proposed equipment cabinets are considered small for telecommunications equipment … and will not be prominent in the wider landscape. The equipment cabinets are ancillary to the functionality of the antenna are proposed to be painted Fir Green ... at a maximum height of 1.925m’.

The proposed mast will be 21m high overall and will be located at the rear corner of the building which is itself 6m high with a flat roof. The front of the building is set 10m back from the pavement and the rear of the building is set back 32m from the pavement.

Properties most directly affected

The site is located between the residential properties No 4 & No 6 Lower Alt Road and is at an oblique angle to both properties. To the rear of the site is the railway bridge over Kerslake Way.

No 4 Lower Alt Way has various side extensions. The main windows of the habitable rooms of this property also do not directly overlook the site of the mast. The lower part of the mast will be screened from No 4 by the side elevation of the exchange building.

No 6 Lower Alt Way has side windows at ground floor and 1st floor level which already face the side of the existing BT building. The windows of the habitable rooms of this property do not directly overlook the site of the mast.

The mast would be very apparent from the rear gardens of both properties and because of its scale would loom over these to some extent. The closest part of the garden of No 4 to the site is 10 metres, but views of the mast from the near half of the garden would be restricted by the Exchange building.

The nearest part of the garden of No 6 is over 20 metres from the site of the mast, and views will be partially limited by trees.

Views from further afieldThe site has extensive tree coverage and landscaped boundaries with the trees at the rear North East boundary covered by a group Tree Preservation Order. The Council’s tree officer has raised no objection to the location of the mast and associated compound which will be 7+ metres away at the nearest point.

While the upper part of the mast would be clearly visible from Lower Alt Road and the village green, the full height of the mast would not be visible from these public vantage points.

The land rises to the north of the site to form the embankment to the Kerslake Way Bridge. The trees between the bridge and the proposed site will partially screen the proposed mast both to views of people crossing this bridge and to views from north of the bridge.

The trees on the embankment are in the order of 13-14m high. These trees will hide the lower two thirds of the mast for much of the year. In winter when the trees have shed their leaves, there would be a filtered and partial view of the mast from the bridge through the branches of the trees.

The railway line runs to the east of the site. Parallel to the railway and closer to the site, the verge of Thistledown Drive is well treed and this too will limit views of the proposed mast from this direction.

A number of mature trees to the east, west and north of the proposed site will shield some of the views of the installation for the occupants of the adjacent residential properties which are more than 20m from the proposed mast. While a number of residential properties may

have oblique views of the site of the mast, none has main windows which directly overlook the site at close quarters.

Alternative sites

The applicant has undertaken a site selection process in accordance with the licence obligations advice in the NPPF and the Code of Best Practice. The applicant’s ‘rollout’ team investigated a number of siting and design options using the following agreed sequential approach to site selection:

upgrading their own existing base stations using existing telecommunications structures belonging to another communications

operator i.e. mast and/ or site sharing, co-location installations on existing high buildings or structures including National Grid pylons using small scale equipment; and finally erecting a new ground based mast site – (1st) camouflaging or disguising

equipment. (2nd) a conventional installation e.g. a lattice mast and compound.

The applicant has investigated a number of alternative sites. The reasons for not choosing the sites were submitted as part of the application and are reproduced as an appendix at the end of this report. A summary is provided below.

The applicant has considered nine other sites, including three greenfield sites, and six sites within the pavement.

The three greenfield sites are Hightown Cricket Club, Hightown Tennis Club (both Thirlmere Rd), and Crosby St Marys RUFC on Gorsey Lane.

These were discounted for the following reasons: Site more exposed with little screening from wider views Greater impact on visual amenity than current location Site located on edge of search area and would not provide as good coverage

However the applicant now wishes to reappraise the Hightown Club site.

Sites located within the residential areas were also discounted: Insufficient pavement space to safely accommodate a telecommunications

installation Close to residential properties with main windows facing the site More visually prominent with little screening available Restrictions posed by underground services & overhead wires.

The Altcar Training Camp is not listed as one of the possible alternative sites.

No site will ever be a perfect choice and able to satisfy the requirements of the operator and the wishes of the local community.

The application site offers screening to parts of the mast both from nearby and more distant vantage points. The presence of the 6 metre British Telecom building in front of the mast, the embankment to Kerslake Way Bridge and the trees to the north and the east, all combine to reduce the impact of the mast.

No residential property would have a direct view of the mast as the properties immediately adjacent are set at an angle and do not have main windows in habitable rooms in the elevations which overlook the site of the mast.

It is concluded that the proposed siting of the mast and associated equipment cabinets represents an acceptable compromise between the operators’ requirements, availability of sites, and the aim of having the least visual impact on the character of the local area.

Appearance

The proposed mast will be triangular in plan form and will have a slim cross section of 1m x 1m x 1m with a height of 21m. It will have a lattice framework for the first 18m with the top 3m supporting the antennas and dishes.

The applicants argue that “exposed antennas have been designed in this location as it is the most efficient way of providing coverage to the target coverage area. The antennas could also be upgraded in the future without significant design changes, whilst maintaining quality telecommunications in the area now and in the future. If the antennas were shrouded they would not provide such a good coverage…… A streetworks style of column would not only restrict coverage to the surrounding area, but is also less flexible in being able to respond to changes in demand and technologies”. The applicants further argue that the lattice tower can be manufactured in short sections and therefore make it easier to assemble in the proposed location which is not easily accessible. By contrast, the ‘stealth’ designs are manufactured in one long piece.

In terms of appearance the basic choice seems to be between a covered column or an open lattice style. The operator expresses preference for the open lattice style in being able to provide better coverage and accommodate future technology, and also because it is easier practically to assemble it on site. Practical issues of easier assembly are of minimal weight in assessing this proposal.

There are different views about which style might be less intrusive. Both will be intrusive to some degree.

In assessing appearance, height is a critical aspect. The applicant claims that “the top antenna height of 21m is required in order for the apparatus to maintain a clear line of sight allowing the installation to link in to the grid network and provide indoor 2G/3G and 4G coverage to the surrounding local area”.

The transmission dishes at the top of the tower are required in order to link in to the network. Without these the site could not be connected to the grid. In order to obtain a clear line of sight the dish needs to have a centre line height of 18m. Given the function of the mast, and the required height to enable it to be effective, any telecommunications mast will be prominent.

Since the first report was prepared for the January 18th 2017 Committee, objectors have submitted a photograph showing a mock-up of the mast. They claimed that the mast will dominate the area and trees will not disguise it. The applicant has pointed out that the mock up photos showing the mast superimposed, is not to scale and does not accurately depict the scale and design of the mast. There are concerns that these mock up photos have been used by the local press and TV when they are not accurate. The site is set back 32 metres from the street. When viewed from Lower Alt Road, the first six metres of the mast will be screened by the British Telecom building. When viewed from close up, the angle of view will screen a further section of the mast. More of the mast will be visible from further along Lower Alt Road, though this will be a more distant view.

To the rear of the site, Kerslake Way Bridge rises well above the application site. The mast will be visible from the bridge but for many months of the year much of the mast will be obscured. The trees are estimated to be 13-14 metres in height and given the angle of view from the road, and the position of the trees between the bridge and the mast, it is likely that only the top few metres of the mast will be visible.

Views of the mast from the east – Thistledown Drive and the railway - will also be partial and intermittent because of the trees along the verge, and again only the top section of the mast and antennas are likely to be visible.

Other views of the mast will be from a greater distance and there will be virtually no vantage point where the mast will be visible in its entirety without some form of screening.

Given the required height of the mast to be effective and the partial screening from most directions, it is considered that the appearance of the proposed mast is acceptable.

Other Matters IAerodromeWhere the proposed development consists of the installation, alteration or replacement of a mast within 3 kilometres of the perimeter of an aerodrome, the General Permitted Development Order 2015 requires the developer to notify the Civil Aviation Authority, the Secretary of State for Defence or the aerodrome operator, as appropriate, before making the application.

Residents have raised concerns in relation to Altcar Army Training Camp occasionally using helicopters and the distance of the camp from the proposed location of the mast. However, this training camp is not classed as an aerodrome and the applicant has

confirmed in the supporting documents that the structure will not be within 3km of an aerodrome or airfield.

Ince Blundell Airfield is within 3km of the application site but is not classed as an aerodrome for the purposes of this legislation as it is not licensed under the Air Navigation Order 2009. The nearest airfield protected by an MOD Safeguarding Zone is Woodvale in Ainsdale which is over 3km from the site.

Need for mast, health, wildlife, property values It is entirely understandable that the local community may wish to raise other concerns, in particular the need for the mast and its potential impact on health.To repeat the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework (para 46), quoted above,“Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for the telecommunications system, or determine health safeguards if the proposal meets International Commission guidelines for public exposure".

The application contains a declaration confirming the apparatus is in full compliance with the requirements of the radio frequency public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

The Local planning authority is similarly unable to take account in this process of concerns over wildlife, property values and the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Summary

Under the “Prior Notification” procedure the principle of the mast is accepted and the only matters which can be assessed are siting and appearance.

It is entirely understood that a proposal of this kind will generate strong views and that alternative sites will inevitably be preferred by many people, and in particular those most directly affected.

A site selection process was carried out and a number of other sites were discounted for a variety of reasons. In view of this and the necessary technical requirements, it is considered that the proposed siting is acceptable.

It is accepted that the upper part of the mast will be seen from many vantage points, this is inevitably the case as a clear line of sight is needed in order to provide a strong signal.

The applicant clearly prefers the open lattice style mast to the covered column which some may consider to be less intrusive. This preference is mainly to do with the open lattice providing better coverage and being able to adapt better to future technology.

However, much of the mast will be screened from many public vantage points and it is concluded the appearance of the mast will not have an unacceptable impact on the character of the local area.

Overall, it is considered that that the proposed development complies with both the National Planning Policy Framework and the relevant part of the Sefton Unitary Development Policy MD8. It is recommended that approval is given.

Recommendation - Prior Approval Required and Approved Prior Approval is given

Informative

1) Approved Plan No`s 100 Rev A, 201 rev A and 301 Rev B

Appendix