|
|
Green Belt appeal decisions |
|||||||
Updated 11 May 2007, this page includes various recent
decisions on appeals against refusal of planning consent. Summarises
of appeal decisions arising from refusal of planning consent are available at www.Planning Reource.co,uk/dcs,
with a copy of the decision letter
also available for a fee.
'SoS' = Secretary of State. 'DETR' is now
‘DCLG’ = Dept for Communities and Local Government.
15m mobile phone
mast refused in
13.7m mobile phone
tower allowed in
14.7m
phone mast refused in
Phone
antennae would harm mill in Lancs. conservation area. The mill is
in a 19th century industrial village based on 5 weaving mills. The
Inspector decided the village had a very appealing historic appearance and
character, and 3 antennas and dish on a mill chimney would be unsympathetic
even though the proposed colour scheme tried to blend in with the
brickwork.
Need
for mobile phone mast needed did not outweigh its visual impact. The 12.5m mast was refused in Metropolitan GB on
appeal despite the operator O2 asserting that the residential area had a weak
signal and mobile phones could only be used outside buildings. This was the only suitable site given the
screening provided by trees. The
Inspector found that the mast would be visible from certain viewpoints and
would be a prominent feature, and harmful to the predominantly natural
character of the area.
15m
telecoms mast OK in
Telecomms
mast allowed in Kent GB because of
network need – The
15m high ‘lightning tree’ mast was allowed despite the harm to the
GB and health fears. It would be within
a belt of mature trees. Other options
had been rejected because of their location in relation to the network. The proposal met the relevant health
guidelines.
'Grain
silo' mobile phone mast approved - In the St Helens GB, approval has been given to
a 16.5m high silo-shaped structure housing telecomms equipment. Although it was
inappropriate, not being for agricultural use, the appellant had examined 9
alternative sites but all were unsuitable for technical reasons. The benefit of
consolidating the telecomms network in the area was significant and the limited
visual impact meant that approval should be given.
Replacement
mobile phone mast approved in
Replacement
antennas on water tower OK - 13 antennas are to be replaced by 12 dual polar
antennason a water tower in the green belt. The Inspector said it would have a
positive effect on green belt openness but the enlarged equipment cabin made it
inappropriate. On balance the improved high-quality service to meet customer
demand was a very special circumstance so approval was granted. Bury MBC 8 Feb
2002.
Mast
approval delay was maladministration - A Council failed to determine a prior
approval application for a mobile phone mast within the 42-day (now 56 days)
deadline allowed under planning laws. The Ombudsman awarded £350 to the
complainant who lived about 200m from the site. The Council had decided to
refuse permission but staff shortages and Christmas caused the delay. This delay
meant that permission was effectively granted. In making this award the
Ombudsman recommended that the Council should attempt to screen the mast from
the complainant's view. Dacorum BC 29 Nov 2001. Ref 00/B/18637
Mobile phone masts -
summary of situation August 2001
'Planning' magazine has
investigated and summarised the complex world of mobile phone masts. The
conclusion is an urgent need for the Government to publish final guidance
within PPG8 on telecommunications following its consulation draft in Jily 2000.
In an article, they say the
Government position appears to be clear. The Housing & Planning Minister
Nick Raynsford wrote to Councils in June 2000 on the subject, and at the same
time the Stewart Report was issued - Report of the Independent Expert Group on
Mobile Phones'. Both recommended a precautionary approach, requiring compliance
with guidelines limiting exposure to radio waves as published by the
International Commision on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). If a
proposed development meets these guidelines, there is no need to consider
health effects further.
In Scotland from July 2001,
applications for antenna should have a declaration of compliance with ICNIRP guidelines
on exposure. This declaration will effectively mean that approval will be
given. However in England, recent planning appeals have been inconsistant. In
one case at Harrow the Inspector concluded that the perception of harm to the
well-being of local residents was sufficient to justify refusal based on loss
of amentity. In another case in Harrow, another Inspector took a contrary view.
In Leeds, an Inspector
refused a 12.5m mast near a main road in a predominantly residential area,
because it would be viewed every day by residents, eroding their perception of
the quality of the local environnment, contrary to
Although diggicult to
generalise, it would appear that:
- potential health effects
should not be used as a justification for withholding permission,
- the environmental effects
based on a perception of harm to the well-being of local residenmts could form
the basis of an objection provided it is related to the siting and visual
appearance of a mast within a sensitive location such as predominantly
residential area,
- the restriction of
emissions or on the erection of further equipment on permitted installations,
should not be imposed.
Mobile phone mast
refused - 'perception of loss of environmental quality'
Not on Green Belt land, but
an Inspector refused a 12.5m monopole mast because its local would heighten the
health concerns of residents. The most important point was not the effect on
the street scene, but the visual significance relative to nearby houses. The
introduction of a commercial development ran counter to
Mobile
phone mast - health conditions disallowed
Hart DC
(Hampshire) conditionally approved a 21m high mobile phone mast requiring
limitations on electromagnetic emissions. Vodaphone appealed and had the
condition deleted. The Inspector referred to circular 1/95 which advised local
authorities, when contemplating whether a condition is necessary, to consider whether
planning permission would be refused without it. National advice is that
radiation safety is a Health and Safety Executive matter, not a planning
matter.The Planning process is not an appropriate mechanism for determining
health safeguards. Provide the installation met international guidelines it was
not necessary for the Council to consider health aspects. The Council was not
allowed to add a condition requiring compliance with international guidelines
since this duplicated controls under other legislation. Hart DC 5 June 2001.
Mobile
phone mast - equipment (& health/safety) limitation disallowed
A Council
approved a 60m high lattice tower with a condition which restricted the
erection or installation of equipment other than that approved. The Inspector
removed this condition. Part 24 of schedule 2 of the General Permitted
Development Order 1995 allows certain classes of telecomms development without
planning permission. This condition would have removed permitted development
rights in order to maintain the character of the locality. Although in the
Green belt and an area of great landscape value, the Inspector ruled the
condition to be unreasonable. Further equipment would not have a seriously
adverse effect on amenity or the landscape. He also ruled that possible health
effects of more equipment did not need planning conditions since any equipment
would have to comply with separate health and safety regulations. South
Oxfordshire DC 11 June 2001. DCS No. 62528205
Wind
monitoring tower refused
The Inspector
dismissed an appeal for a 40m tower to monitor wind energy in the Bristol Green
Belt. The height of the tower, and its location in the middle of an open field
meant it was visible over a wide area, diminshing the openness of the Green
Belt. The proximity of a TV tower would draw attention to both structures,
further dimishing the openness. The possibility of developing a wind farm
providing renewable energy and farm diversity did not creat a very special
circumstance. It would also have an adverse effect on the Mendip Hills, an area
of outstanding natural beauty. No conditions could be imposed to remedy the
damage. Bath & NE Somerset Council. 2 May 2001. DCS No. 33617177
Mobile
Phone mast refused in green belt due to visual impact
Vodaphone was
denied prior approval under part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order
for a 15m free-standing lattice tower with equipment cabin < 30 cubic m. in
the London green Belt. The Inspector said the tower would just project above
the trees so it was not unduly intrusive. The equipment cabin was substantial
with a 1.8m chain link fence topped with barbed wire. visible from nearby land
and a public footpath. This would, in her opinion, harm the openness of the
area. Although the mast was needed, this did not justify the cabin and
ancillary development. L/B Bromley 28 Feb 2001 DCS No. 41974200.
Replacement
telecomms mast not approved.
Not in the
Green Belt, but the Inspector upheld an enforcement order requiring the removal
of a replacement telecomms mast. The 18m mast was in the back garden of a
semi-detached house in Solihull. The Inspector said the removal of the former
mast of similar dimensions did not authorise a replacement. The appellant said
the new mast was an identical model with similar dimensions so no further
consent was required. The Inspector concluded that the previous permission was
'spent' when the permission was implemented, and a new mast was beyond an 'act
of maintenance'. The replacement mast was not immune from enforcement action
since it had been installed within the last 4 years. It was a visually
intrusive and alien feature in a residential area. Solihull MBC 18 April 2001.
DCS No. 27353054
Mobile
phone mast OK, being unobtrusive and lacking evidence of health risk
An 11.5m
telecoms pole was allowed in the Green Belt at Harrow Weald. The Inspector
considered it inappropriate in polciy terms, but noted it would not be unduly
obtrusive in its verdant setting. The Courts have held that any genuine
perception of health danger was a valid consideration. In this case, there were
no representations that the pole would break current National Radiiological
Protectiion Board guidelines, so there was no justification for rejecting the
proposal on health grounds. L/B Harrow 9 Feb 2001. DCS no. 30611318. NOTE - See the case reported
immediately below where health fears caused the opposite decision.
2 Mobile phone masts refused on appeal
The Planning
Inspectorate have dismissed two separate appeals for mobile phone masts on
grounds of public fears about health hazards. This is the first time that these
fears have been considered a material consideration. One was at Stanmore in
London Borough of Harrow. The Inspector said ' There is justification for the
Council's view that residents anxiety about the health effects of the appeal
installations materially contributes to the general loss of amenity. Another
Inspector upheld Thurrock's refusal of an 8 metre high mast for the same
reason.
Planning
Minister Nick Raynsford wrote to Councils last summer advising them to ignore
health issues when determining mast applications if they met international
radiation guidelines. Butthe lobby group Mast Action UK said these decisions
will give authorities to ignore Raynsford's advice, which MAUK believe vioates
the Human Rights Act. MAUK say that inspectors are doing what the law requires.
It respects the European Convention on Human Rights article 8 -the right to
respect for family life and article 6 - the right to a fair and proper hearing.
the RTPI say that 'this will put new pressure on authorities to refuse masts.
But it is barmy to leave them to judge the safety of each individual mast. the
Government needs to assess if they are safe.'
Refusal of Mobile
phone antenna on Victorian church.
Three 1.8m antenna and a
0.3m microwave dish were refused as discordant if attached to a Victorian
church spire of Gothic style. While noting the Government's advice to use
existing structures it was inappropriate for a listed building. Wakefield MBC,
17 Nov 2000 - APP/X4725/A/00/1047644
Phone mast allowed
as health fears rejected
Not in the Green Belt, but
Orange won their appeal to build a 20m high mobile phone mast on an industrial
estate in Fowey , Cornwall near a primary school. The Council refused permission
since it was near a primary school and residential properties, and there was no
evidence to prove that radiation from the mast would not be a risk to human
health.
The DETR Inspector took
into account the findings of the Ind ependent Expert Group on Mobile Phones
Report published in May 2000. She noted that the proposal complied with the
policies in the structure plan and emerging local plan, and that levels of
radiation from the proposed mast fell well below national and int ernational
guidelines on public exposure. Despite evidence from the Council that the
proposed mast could cause health problems, such as increased risk of cancer,
she found that the evidence was not reliable enough to establish a
'demonstrable harm'. The evidence on possible health impacts was not
substantial enough to outweigh the social and economic benefits of allowing the
proposal.