|
Site visit made on 17 February 2004
by Anthony J Davison BA(Hons) LLB(Hons) MSc MBA FRTPI RIBA MLI
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/03/1131229
Gorsehill Water Tower, Gorsehill Road, New Brighton, Wallasey, CH45 9JA
- The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Building and
Conservation Area) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building
consent.
- The appeal is made by T-Mobile (UK) Ltd against the decision of Wirral
Metropolitan Borough Council.
- The application (Ref.LBC/2003/5700/E), dated 20 March 2003, was
refused by the Council by notice dated 6 June 2003.
- The works proposed are the installation of four antennae and one
transmission dish fixed to the water tower, together with with equipment
housed within the tower at ground level and ancillary development.
Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed
Appeal B: APP/W4325/A/03/1131263
Gorsehill Water Tower, Gorsehill Road, New Brighton, Wallasey, CH45 9JA
- The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
- The appeal is made by T-Mobile (UK) Ltd against the decision of Wirral
Metropolitan Borough Council.
- The application (Ref. APP/2003/5698/E), dated 19 March 2003, was
refused by the Council by notice dated 6 June 2003.
- The development proposed is the installation of four antennae and one
transmission fixed to the water tower, together with equipment
housed within the tower at ground level and ancillary development.
Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed
Procedural Matters
- The proposals involve alterations to the Gorsehill Water Tower, which
is a Grade II Listed Building. The appeals relate to two appeals for
identical sets of proposals. The only difference between the
applications is that one is for listed building consent and the other
for planning permission. I have therefore delt with them together.
- During my visit I also viewed the site from 36 Sudworth Road in the
company of representatives of both main parties.
Main Issue
- I consider the main issue in the appeal to be effect on the
architectural and historic interest of the Listed Building.
Planning Policy
- The development plan is the 2000 Wirral Unitary Development Plan (the
UDP). UDP Policy CH1 seeks to ensure that proposals affecting Listed
Buildings are appropriate to the character of the building. Policy TEL1
says that proposals for telecommunications antennae will be assessed
with regard to their siting and design and environmental impact and
that regard will also be had to the strategic requirements of the
network concerned. Policy TE1 sets out criteria for telecommunications
apparatus. Among other things it requires applicants to demonstrate
that the apparatus can not be located on an existing building and that
the impact upon amenity should be minimal.
- I have also had regard to national planning policy, as set out in the
Government's planning policy guidance notes (PPG). I consider the 2001
version of PPG8, Telecommunications, and the 1994 version of PPG15,
Planning and the Historic Environment, to be of particular relevance to
these appeals.
Appraisal
The architectural and Historic Interest of the Building
- The appeal building is a large red sandstone octagonal structure. It is
some 25m tall with a flanking octagonal turret that projects above the
main structure and is in a very prominent location. The tower and
turret both have double-stepped embattled parapets and the upper stage
of the tower has an arcade on each face of the building consisting of
three round headed openings with Ionic colonettes. The appeal proposals
comprise a 300mm dish aerial and four panel antennae set between the
arches of the arcade. There would also be ancillary equipment, to which
the Council has no objection, located out of sight within the building.
- The tower is already host to the installations of several other
operators. These include a number of antennae projecting above the
parapets as well as a variety of dish aerials and panels attached to
the face of the building. The building has a robust outline and, in my
opinion, the roof-mounted antennae have only a limited impact on its
appearance and do not harm its architectural integrity. In contrast, the
equipment fixed to the face of the building obscures architectural
details, interferes with the composition of the elevations and, in my
opinion, gives the upper part of the building a cluttered appearance
that distracts from its architectural interest. I consider that the
cables associated with this equipment, which run the outside of the
building, further contribute to this clutter.
- The Appellants' proposals are modest in comparison with the equipment
already installed on the tower. The dish aerial would be much smaller
than the existing ones and the four antennae would be more discreetly
sited in the arcade rather than mounted on the face of the building.
Nonetheless, they would add significantly to the existing clutter
around the top of the tower and I consider that, as such, they would
detract from its architectural interest. Furthermore, I consider that
they would disrupt the pattern of the arcade, which I regard as one
of the important features of the building.
- I have taken account of the fact that some of the equipment already on
the tower results from earlier appeal decisions. However, one of those
appeals appeals to relate to the reorganisation of equipment that was
already there, while the other occurred nearly four years ago when, it
would seem, there was less equipment in place than there is now.
Moreover, paragraph 3. 13 of PPG15 points out that minor works to a
building can cumulatively be very destructive of its special interest.
In my view that is what would result from the addition of yet more
equipment in the manner proposed.
- I see no reason to question the Appellants' claim that the water tower
provides the most appropriate location for telecommunications equipment
in this part of New Brighton. The fact that other operators have sought
to locate their equipment there lends support to that view. Although
the Council says that there is insufficient evidence of a proper search
for alternative sites having been carried out I see that a list of other
possible sites was submitted with the applications. In many cases the
Appellants' reasons for deeming these to be unsuitable consist simply
of a statement to that effect with very little in the way of
explanation. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the evidence before me
to suggest that any of these other locations would be preferable to the
appeal site.
- Furthermore, paragraphs 67 and 68 of PPG8 encourage the use of shared
sites so as to avoid the proliferation of installations. There are no
other telecommunications masts in the area and the only alternative in
this instance would be to install equipment on a building or other
location where there is none at all at present. It seems to me that
this would conflict with the advice in PPG8 and the aims of Policy TE1
of the UDP. It also seems to me that the appeal proposals would further
the aims of UDP Policy CH1 and PPG15 by helping to secure the future
of historic building.
- My conclusion is that, while I can see no objection in principle to the
use of the tower to house telecommunications equipment, the proposals
before me would detract from the architectural interest of the Listed
Building. I consider that it would, therefore, conflict with
UDP Policies CH1, TEL1 and TE1.
Health Implications
- I regard the concern expressed by local residents about the heath
implications of the proposed installation as a material consideration
in respect of Appeal B and have taken it into account in reaching my
decision. However, the Appellants have confirmed that the installation
would comply with the guidelines for public exposure set by the
International Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP). Paragraph
98 of PPG8 says that the planning system is not the place for
determining health safeguards and adds that, if a proposed installation
meets ICNIRP guidelines it should not be necessary to consider the
health aspects and concerns about them any further. Accordingly I
consider that the residents' concerns about what they perceive to be the
health risks associated with the appeal proposals do not justify
withholding planning permission.
Conclusions
- I do not regard the fears of local residents with regard to the health
implications of the proposals as being sufficient justification for
withholding planning permission. However, I consider that placing further
equipment on the face of the building in the manner proposed,
would detract from the architectural interest of the listed Building.
Consequently my overall conclusion, having regard to all other matters
raised, is that the appeals should be dismissed.
Formal Decisions
- I dismiss each of the appeals.
Information
- A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the
validity of either of these decisions may be challenged by making
application to the High Court.
|
