|
by John R Mattocks BSc(SpHons) DipTP MRTPI
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: reference - APP/W4325/A/04/1150001
Appeal B: reference - APP/W4325/E/04/1153246
Gorsehill Reservoir Water Tower, Gorsehill Road, New Brighton, CH45 9JA
- Appeal A is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
- Appeal B is made under section 20 of Ac Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building
consent.
- The appeals are made by Hutchison 3G UK Ltd against the decisions of
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.
- Application A, reference APP/2003/6323/E and application B, reference
LBC/2003/6328/E, both dated 9~ June 2003, were refused by notices dated 13"h
November 2003.
- The development and works proposed are "internal installation of 3 no.
Antenna 2 no. 300 mm. Microwave dishes, equipment Cabinet + ancillary +
replace 5 windows with GRP"
Summary of Decisions: The appeals are both dismissed
Procedural Matters
- The wording used on the two applications to describe the proposed works
is precisely the same as stated above. The Council refused both applications
for the identical reasons although they have amended the description of the
development proposed in the planning application to "5 GRP replacement
windows to enable telecommunications works'.- This amendment appears not to
have been agreed by the appellants and so I will determine the appeals on
the basis of the original descriptions.
Main Issue
- The water tower is a grade II* listed building. The main issue is,
therefore, whether the proposals would assist in preserving the building or
its setting or any special architectural features it possesses with regard
to its character and appearance.
Planning Policies
- The statutory development plan is the Wirral Unitary Development Plan
(UDP), adopted in 2000. Policies TE1 and TEL1 are most relevant to
telecommunications development and policy CHI to the consideration
of development affecting listed buildings.
Inspector's Reasoning
- Before dealing with the main issue I will deal briefly with the
telecommunications policy aspect of the proposals. In so far as the water
tower already accommodates a wide range of telecommunications equipment it
is clearly an existing site where, under the guidance in paragraph 66 of the
appendix to PPG 8, it might be expected that development would be encouraged
to minimise proliferation. I am satisfied in this case that the appellants
have- investigated alternatives but the technical characteristics of the 3G
network and small cell size limit the search area.
- Both UDP policies TEL1 and TE1 relate to the development of
telecommunications apparatus and antennae. In this case, the appellants have
sought to minimise the visual impact of the additional antennae by coming up
with what might be regarded as a novel c technical solution, that is to
mount the antennae entirely within the building. The antennae would still be
visible through the windows and this has implications for the character of
the listed building, as I discuss below, but I am satisfied that the siting
and design of the antennae would be such as to minimise their environmental
impact and ensure that, to use the words of policy TE1, "the impact on
amenity is minimal. I find nothing in the proposals in conflict with the
principles in TEL1 or the particulars of policy TE1 and, consequently,
consider that the proposals comply with these UDP provisions.
- The main issue arises, however, because this is a listed building. It
is a fine example of a late Victorian 'mock castle" in red sandstone to
disguise the utilitarian nature of the structure to support a water tank. It
is in the form of an octagonal tower with a turret attached on the southern
side facing Gorsehill Road. On each of the 8 sides of the main tower are
pairs of long narrow round-headed windows in 3 sections. In my opinion,
these windows form an important architectural feature as they emphasise the
vertical nature and support function of the structure.
- Both the planning and listed building proposals involve the replacement
of the metal glazing bars and glass in 5 of the 16 round-headed top most
windows described above. They would be replaced by GRP panels, I assume to
permit radio waves to be transmitted with minimum attenuation. The 5 windows
to be replaced would not be evenly spaced but two would be to the left of
the turret on elevation A; one to the right on elevation B; one to the left
seen front elevation C and one on elevation D.
- I recognise that these panels would be treated and painted to replicate
as far as possible the existing window panels. I do not doubt that this can
be achieved in terms of their form. However, the main concern is in terms
of the nature of the material; its appearance and weathering. In this
respect, I consider it mistaken to be influenced by the fact that the
windows show lack of regular maintenance at present with some panes broken,
others repaired with wire net glass and variation in frame condition. It
cannot be right to use the existing conditions to suggest that the new
frames would only be adding further to this variation.
- The new windows would be just that, new. They would presumably be
painted afresh. They would thus be highly noticeable and in marked contrast
to the remaining less well maintained panels. As far as I am aware, the
appellants would have no control over the maintenance programme for the
whole building which is owned by United Utilities. The fact that only the
top-most windows within the long 3 panel features would be replaced and then
in an uneven manner on the facades would, in my opinion, upset the
architectural balance of the windows and the contribution they make to the
appearance of the listed building. This comes within the terms of the
guidance in paragraph 3.12 of PPG15 where minor alterations would have a
significant cumulative on a feature of architecture importance.
- Furthermore, although the internal mounting of the aerials and dishes
would minimise their impact overall I see that they would be mounted very
close to the inner surface of the windows. They would inevitable be visible
from outside. The upper part of the building is already heavily adorned with
the antennae of various operators. This proposal, for the first time, would
bring telecommunications apparatus to a lower level. As the third party
representations suggest, the continuing additions are beginning to change
the character of the entire building from one of a water tower to that of a
telecommunications tower. I agree that it is a "step too far".
- For these reasons I conclude that the proposed replacement windows
would not retain the character of the building contrary to UDP policy CHI
and that planning permission should not be granted for that reason. In
addition, the failure to preserve the integrity of an important
architectural feature is reason to refuse the grant of listed building
consent. I do not consider that the appellants* licence obligation to
achieve 80% service coverage by 2007 is a factor of sufficient weight to
outweigh these considerations.
Other matters
- In view of my conclusions on the main issue it is not necessary for me
to go into detail about the concerns raised by interested parties about the
potential health effects of further telecommunications development at this
site. I have read the many representations made and I will comment only that
the appellants have certified that the ICNIRP guidelines will be complied
with taking account of the cumulative effect with all of the other
facilities on the tower. They have also demonstrated that the "beams of
maximum intensity" will not be towards any of the local schools.
- I appreciate that even though there is no scientific proof of a direct
causal link between microwave radio transmissions and public health there is
a genuine public concern on the matter. This tower is extremely close to
many houses on Gorsehill Road and nearby and the proposed antennae, being at
a lower level than the existing ones, would be seen through the windows from
the houses beneath them. This would increase the public perception of a
reduction in the quality of the living environment. However, taking account
of the number of antennae already on the tower I do not consider that this
would have been sufficient reason to refuse planning permission in its own
right.
- None of the other matters raised in the representations are such as to
alter my conclusion that the appeals should be dismissed, i
Formal Decisions
- I dismiss both appeals.
INSPECTOR
|
