Tower Action Group Tower Action Group

Appeal Decision



Site visit made on 11 August 2003
by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the First Secretary of State

The Planning Inspectorate
4/09 Kite Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
0117 372 6372
e-mail:enquiries@planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

Appeal A: APP/W4325/E/03/1112222
Gorsehill Reservoir Water Tower, Gorsehill Road, New Brighton, Wirral, CH45 9JA
  • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent.
  • The appeal is made by Orange PCS Ltd against the decision of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.
  • The application (Ref.LBC/2002/5735/E), dated 04 April 2002, was refused by notice dated 24 January 2003.
  • The works proposed are replacement of existing telecommunications apparatus with 6 no. antennae and 4 no. 600mm microwave dishes plus development ancillary thereto.
Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted subject to the conditions set out in the Formal Decision below.

Appeal B: APP/W4325/A/03/1111959
Gorsehill Reservoir Water Tower, Gorsehill Road, New Brighton, Wirral, CH45 9JA

  • The appeal is made under section 7S of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
  • The appeal is made by Orange PCS Ltd against the decision of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.
  • The application (Ref.APP/2002/5728/E), dated 03 April 2002, was refused by notice dated 24 January 2003.
  • The development proposed is the replacement of existing telecommunications apparatus with 6 no. antennae and 4 no. 600mm microwave dishes and ancillary development.
Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted subject to the conditions set out in the Formal Decision below.

    Procedural Matters and Background

  1. The application drawings were revised several times during the progress of the originating application. I am dealing with the appeal on the basis of drawings 10/MER0108/01, /02D, /03H, /04F, /05, /06F, /07F, /08F, /09A, /10A, /11A and /12A.
  2. The Water Tower dates from 1902 to 1905, It has an octagonal form, in red sandstone, with a flanking turret and is listed Grade II. The tower is adorned with a significant number of aerials, antennae and dishes and there is an extant listed building consent for more. The proposal seeks to replace 6 existing with 6 new antennae and to provide 4 dishes in place of 3 that are in situ. There are also some internal works required to service the installation.

    Main Issue

  3. In this light the main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.

    Planning Policy

  4. The development plan for the area is the Wirral Unitary Development Plan (UDP), of February 2000. Policies TEL1 and Policy TE1 balance the technical requirements of. telecommunications development against their visual impact. This is consistent with advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 – Telecommunications (PPG8).
  5. Policy CH1 seeks to retain the character and design of listed buildings, derived from the statutory provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Sections 16(2) and 66(1) require, in assessing applications for listed building consent or planning permission, for works or development affecting a listed building (or its setting), special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses. This is expanded upon in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15).

    Reasons

  6. The proposal has three constituent parts, the internal works, the antennae and the dishes.
  7. From what I saw the interior of the building is functional containing pipework and machinery that relates to its primary purpose and a room that houses equipment serving the existing telecommunications apparatus. Within this context I consider that the additional equipment required to serve the proposed installation, some of which would be within the room, would have no harmful effect on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
  8. Turning to the antennae, the frieze directly below the castellated parapet already accommodates a series, located close to the external corners of the octagon or bisecting its sides. These antennae have a variety of fixing methods, wiring and colouring, the existing BT Cellnet equipment being the least distinguished in terms of all three. In comparison, the existing antennae operated by the Appellants are relatively subtle. The proposal seeks to remove these antennae, replacing them with new ones that would have a more careful fixing detail and a painted finish to approximate the existing sandstone. I accept the comments made by my colleague (E/01/1065224 A A/01/1065225) about the difficulty of colour matching due to differential weathering characteristics. However, in the case of Flaybrick Hill Water Tower new equipment, where none already existed, was under consideration. In this case, because there is equipment to be replaced, it seems to me that what matters is not whether an exact colour match can be secured but whether a colour match as good or better than that which already exists is possible. I see no reason why this cannot be achieved. As a consequence of all this, I consider that the proposed antennae would have no harmful effect on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
  9. The existing arcade level (directly below the frieze) caters for existing dishes within the arched openings. To my mind, setting the dishes within the arch and colouring them black significantly reduces their visual impact. The proposal would lead to one additional dish. In my view, because of the element of disguise, this additional dish would have no harnful effect on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
  10. Taking these points together, the proposal complies with the requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, UDP Policies CH1, TEL1 and TE1 and advice in PPG15 and PP68.

    Other Matters

  11. Significant objections have been raised in relation to the proposed installation and potential health effects. The Appellants have confirmed that the installation has been designed to comply with the guidelines published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP). Government advice in PPG8 is that, in these circumstances, it should not be necessary to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them. While the perception of the local populace that the mast will affect their health is a material consideration, I have found nothing in the objections put forward that is sufficient to justify withholding planning permission against the thrust of Government advice. Conditions
  12. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in the light of advice in Circular 11/95 - The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions and PP615.
  13. I agree that details of the finish of the equipment should be subject to further approval and control is necessary over the fixing of external cabling. This can all be joined in one condition. It is important, given the stress I have placed on the merits of the proposal in the light of the equipment it is intended to replace, that this existing equipment is removed concurrently with the new installation. I shall attach a suitable condition accordingly.
  14. A condition is not necessary to ensure removal of the new equipment when it is no longer in use as this is a requirement of the Telecommunications Act 1984 in any event.

    Conclusions

  15. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeals should be allowed.

    Formal Decision

    Appeal A

  16. In exercise of the powers transferred to me, I allow the appeal and grant listed building consent for the replacement of existing telecommunications apparatus with 6 no. antennae and 4 no. 600mm microwave dishes plus development ancillary thereto at Gorsehill Reservoir Water Tower, Gorsehill Road, New Brighton, Wirral, CH45 9JA, in accordance with the terms of the application LBC/2002/5735/E, dated 04 April 2002 and the plans submitted thereafter, subject to the following conditions:
    1. The works hereby authorised shall be begun not later than 5 years from the date of this consent.
    2. No works shall take place until samples of the colour finish of all the equipment and cables and in the case of the latter, its fixing, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
    3. The antennae and dishes, and their associated fixings and cabling, scheduled for removal as part of the works, shall be completely removed concurrently with the installation of the new equipment and any consequent damage to the building shall be made good in matching materials.

    Appeal B

  17. In exercise of the powers transferred to me, I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the replacement of existing telecommunications apparatus with 6 no. antennae and 4 no. 600mm microwave dishes and ancillary development at Gorsehill Reservoir Water Tower, Gorsehill Road, New Brighton, Wirral, CH45 9JA, in accordance with the terms of the application APP/2002/5728/E, dated 03 April 2002, and the plans submitted thereafter, subject to the following conditions:
    1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this decision.
    2. No development shall take place until samples of the colour finish of all the equipment and cables and in the case of the latter, its fixing, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
    3. The antennae and dishes, and their associated fixings and cabling, scheduled for removal as part of the development, shall be completely removed concurrently with the installation of the new equipment and any consequent damage to the building shall be made good in matching materials.

    Information

  18. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of any of these decisions may be challenged by making an application to the High Court.
  19. This decision does not convey any approval or consent that may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation other than sections 7 and 8 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
  20. This decision does not convey any approval or consent that may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  21. An applicant for any approval required by a condition attached to this permission has a statutory right of appeal to the Secretary of State if that approval is refused or granted conditionally or if the authority fails to give notice of its decision within the prescribed period.
INSPECTOR
Author: Tower Action Group <tag at emit.demon.co.uk>
Modified: 2005-01-27 15:58:47