|
Hearing held 18 September 2001
This is a copy of the appeal decision on the
Flaybrick Water Tower.
Appeal Ref: A1313/W4325|/01/1065224
Water Tower, Flaybrick Hill Reservoir, Boundary Road, Bidston, Wirral
- The appeal is made by Vodafone Ltd under section 20 of the planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against the decision of
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council to refuse to grant listed building
consent.
- The application (Ref. LBC/2001/5088/E), dated 18/01/01, was refused by
the Council by notice dated 09/03/01.
- The work proposed is the installation of 6 face-mounted, colour-coded
antennae, and the erection of a stone-clad equipment building
Summary of decision: The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal Ref: APP/W4325/A/01/1065225
Water Tower, Flaybrick Hill Reservoir, Boundary Road, Bidston, Wirral
- The appeal is made by Vodafone Ltd under section 78 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Wirral Metropolitan
Borough Council to refuse to grant planning permission.
- The application (Ref APP/200l/5084/E), data 18/01/01, was refused by
notice dated 09/03/01.
- The development proposed is the installation of 6 face-mounted,
colour-coded antennae, and the erection of a stone-clad equipment building.
Summit of Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
- Flaybrick Reservoir Water Tower and Pump House are listed together as
being of special architectural or historic interest, Grade II Accordingly,
in determining these appeals sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special regard
should be had to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its
setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which
it possesses.
Main Issues
- The main issue to be decided in both of these appeals is whether the
proposed works of alteration to the listed building, comprising the
installation of 6 antennae, and the erection of a separate equipment cabin,
would preserve the character of the building, its features of special
architectural or historic interest and its setting
- Local residents also raised as an issue possible health problems
associated with the telecommunications installation.
Planning Policy
- The Council claims that the works would be contrary to Pollcies CHI,
TELI and TE 1 of the Unitary Development Plan for Wirral. CH1 deals with
development affecting listed buildings with regard to the need to retain the
character and design of the bulldog, its setting and architectural features,
the use of materials, Justification for the alterations and the need to
secure the long-term future of the building TEL1 and TE1 allow the
Installation of telecommunications equipment where, inter alia, its siting
and appearance would have minimal Impact upon amenity. Where the proposal is
for a new building. the policy requires the applicant to demonstrate that an
existing building could not be shared.
Reasons
- With regard to local concern over health issues, the appellants point
out that the proposed installation accords with precautionary approach set
out in the latest version of page and the guidelines set down by the Stewart
Report. ie that the emissions from mobile phones base stations should meet
the ICNIRP guidehnes for pubic exposure as expressed in the EU Council
Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general
pubic to electromagnetic fields (0Hz to 300GHz).
- It is the government's view that the planning system is not the place
for determining health safeguards, and where a mobile phone base station
meets ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, as in this instance, it is not
necessary for me to consider further the health aspects and concerns in the
locality.
- Turning to the main issue, the effect on the listed building, I
observed on site that this 1860s Victorian water tower is an attractive
sandstone structure in a neo-classical style, supporting a round iron tank.
The tower remains in its original use, and the cylindrical exterior condoms
a wealth of fme ashlar and carved stone details, included Doric pilasters to
the ground floor and engaged columns above with capitals, round-headed
windows, blind arcading capped by a stone cornice. The listed Pump House to
the south is in a derelict condition. Four bays square, this building
displays similar architectural details, with roundheaded widows, pilasters
and blind arcading.
- The rotunda of the Water Tower comprises 14 arched bays, of which 7
have windows and 7 are "blind" being unfilled with plain coursed, squared
sandstone walls The appeal proposals would involve the installation of three
pairs of vertical antennae (each 2.3m long) in the centre of three of the
blind arcades, set within the recesses of the pilasters. reveals and arched
heads. In order to provide coverage of the area surrounding the Tower, Cell
1 would be sited on the east side of the tower, angled at 90 deg., Cell 2 on
the south-west side would be angled at 210 deg. and Cell 3 in a
northerly-facing recess would be angled at 330 deg.
- The equipment cabin, some 3m wide by 6.45m long and approximately 3.5m
highs would be built of clockwork and reconstituted stone with a pitched
tiled root sited about 7m to the rear (east) of the Water Tower. From this,
feeder cables to the antennae would be ducted underground to the base of the
tower and then run up the stone wall to enter the building through a plywood
panel in the ground floor window. These cables would then run inside the
tower to the upper level and out through new holes drilled through the
stonework at the antennae positions.
- Only small-scale plans and elevations have been submitted. The
proposals lack precise details of the appearance, materials and method of
fixing of the 6 antennae, the external materials to be used for the
construction of the equipment building, and there are no submitted
elevations of the equipment building Whilst I acknowledge that appropriate
materials for the cabin could be secured by conditions, the lack of
sufficient design details of the antennae is a serious omissions which makes
it difficult to assess the likely impact of the proposed Installation on the
historic structure.
- The Council takes the view that the proposed installation of antennae
on the listed tower represent unnecessary alterations to the building which
would have a significant detrimental impact on its umque character and
appearance, and the proposed location of the equipment cabin building would
detract from the setting of the listed tower. It is considered that the
acknowledged needs of the telecommunications operator do not outweigh the
harm that would be caused to the listed building
- It is not disputed that existing telecommunications coverage in this
area is inadequate and therefore Vodafone is unable to comply fully with the
conditions of its operator's licence I accept that the height and the
location of Flaybrick Water Tower make it an ideal solution for Improving
telecommunications service in the area for the surrounded population density
and main roads, but the proposed alteration of the listed building and the
impact upon its setting needs careful justification.
- In order to lessen their visual impact on the upper arches camouflage
the antennae by paining their exterior surfaces weathered sandstone of the
tower. Whilst it would be possible degree, each pair of antennae would have
to tone with the colour, banding, Jointing and weathering of the stone
courses, which are different in each of the 3 proposed locations. As the
round tower has weathered differently on each facade according to the degree
of exposure to the prevailing wind and rain, some of the stonework is almost
black with a 140 years of soot and grime, whilst other parts retain the red
sandstone appearance. The submitted photographs of a single antenna, which
was fixed to the tower and painted to match the stonework, do not give a
clear Impression of the likely appearance of pairs of antennae fixed at
various angles on different sides of the building of the rotunda, it is
proposed to and fixing brackets to match the to match the stonework to a
- Consequently, I am not satisfied that it would practical to blend each
individual antennae with the complex patina of the weathered stone
background using paint alone. As a finished surface, paint would not have
the same visual qualities as old red sandstone. It would reflect rather than
absorb the light ln a quite different way to dressed stone, particularly
when wet, and it would be liable to weather differently over time.
- Nor would painting be able camouflage the 3-dimensional forms of the
antennae themselves. The introduction of the 3 pairs of vertical antennae,
fixed proud of the stonework within the recesses, would appear quite alien
to the architectural composition of the listed tower. Located at the centre
of the 3 blind arched recesses, the pairs of antennae would be angled
against the stone wall on brackets in order to cover each sector of the
area. Their form and appearance would be quite visible as unsympathetic
elements in the formal architectural facade of the tower
- The Introduction of cables on the rear facade of the tower and the
proposed alteration of the ground floor window to provide entry into the
building would also harm the fabric of the tower and spoil its appearance.
As none of these alterations would harmonize with the classical composition
of the listed building. I conclude that the Installation of these antennae
would fail to preserve its character and its features of special
architectural and historic Interest.
- I note that the appellants have examined the possibility of
accommodating the equipment cabin within the disused Pump House, but the
submitted figures for the costs of repair and rebuilding of this listed
building are hauntingly expensive Therefore, the proposed development does
not include any advantages for the listed buildings on the site, In terms of
finance for repair and restoration, or in securing their future use. The
possibilities of sharing the cost of re-using the Pump House with the owners
and other telecommunications operators do not appear to have been explored
Nor has the alternative solution of siting the equipment building within the
stabilised walls of the Pump House been examined by the appellants.
- The historic setting of Flaybrick Water Tower comprises the listed Pump
House next door, the 2 covered reservoirs and the octagonal Chlorine
Butldtng at the entrance. Included in the wider area are the Waterworks
Cottages and the stone walls around the perimeter of the reservoirs. Even if
it were to be constructed of stone with a slate roof. the introduction of a
free-standing. modern, rectangular equipment building within 7 metres of the
tower would fail to preserve this setting. Whilst I accept that the new
building would be less conspicuous at the rear of the tower than the front,
all aspects of this historic structure are of equal importance, and the
proposed siting would spoil the original layout and setting of the tower
building
- Although the appellants have carried out a search of the surrounding
area to find an alternative site so as to avoid locating equipment on this
listed building, there is no tangible evidence to show that all possible
alternative sites would prove to be unsuitable, due to land ownership or
technical constraints, as stated. Whilst it may appear to the appellant
company to be the ideal location, I do not accept that the listed tower is
the only suitable location for Vodafone to meet its licence requirements.
- The presence of the redundant VHF radio aerial on the top of the water
tank does not establish a precedent for further telecommunications equipment
to be sited on the Water Tower, because it is due to be removed shortly Its
removal would not be a direct benefit from the appeal proposals going ahead
In contrast to the Gorsehill Reservoir Water Tower in New Brighton, which I
also visited, the Flaybnck Water Tower remains in its original form.
uncluttered by modern radio and telecommunications aerials.
Conditions
- Several conditions, suggested by the Council, were discussed at the
Hearing. These covered such matters as the details of fixing of the
antennae, painting and landscaping, making good the stonework and removal of
antennae when no longer in use. However, I find that the imposition of these
conditions would not overcome the principal objections to the proposals.
Conclusions
- I therefore conclude that the proposed development would fail to
preserve the character of the listed building, its features of special
architectural or historic interest and its setting For the reasons given
above and having regard to all other matters raised, I consider that neither
of the appeals should succeed.
Formal Decisions
- In exercise of the powers transferred to me, I dismiss both the appeal
ref: A1313/W4325|/01/1065224 (Listed Building Consent) and appeal ref:
APP/W4325/A/01/1065225 (Planning Permision).
Information
- A seperate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the
validity of any of the descisions may be challenged by making an application
to the High Court within 6 weeks from the date of the descision.
|
