Agenda Item 13.2 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 21 September 2005 REPORT OF THE CHIPPING BARNET AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE 6 SEPTEMBER 2005

Transcription

1 Agenda Item 13.2 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 21 September 2005 REPORT OF THE CHIPPING BARNET AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE 6 SEPTEMBER 2005 SUB-COMMITTEE: *Councillor Katia David, BSC, MBA, JP (Chairman) (Not present for the items recorded below) *Councillor Victor Lyon, BA (Hons) (Vice-Chairman) (In the Chair for the items indicated in the report of the Sub-Committee and other items shown on the Decisions of the Sub-Committee) Councillors: Terry Burton *Peter Davis CText, FTI, FCFI Daniel Hope *Gerard Silverstone *Soon Hoe-Teh *denotes Member present STATION ROAD, BARNET, HERTS, EN5 1PP OAKLEIGH WARD (Report of the Head of Planning Agenda Item 8): The Sub-Committee, having heard oral representations objecting to the application from Mr Bowden, 55 Somerset Road, New Barnet, Herts EN5 considered the attached report of the Head of Planning (Appendix 1). A vote was taken and all members abstained, therefore the Sub-Committee were unable to reach a decision. In these exceptional circumstanes, the Sub Committee then agreed that the parent body, the Planning and Environment Committee, should consider the matter in accordance with Council Procedure Rules, Part 3, paragraph 5.1. RECOMMENDATION - That the Planning and Environment Committee consider the matter and make a decision. 2. BARNET GENERAL HOSPITAL, WELLHOUSE LANE, BARNET, HERTS, EN5 3DJ UNDERHILL WARD (Report of the Head of Planning Agenda Item 8): The Sub-Committee, having heard oral representations objecting to the application from Mr Spector, 63 Sutton Crescent, Barnet, Herts EN5, Mr Printemps, 3 Lingholm Way, Barnet, Herts, EN5, Mr Stephen Phillips, 61 Sutton Crescent, Barnet, Herts, EN5 and the applicant s response, considered the attached report and Addendum circulated by the Head of Planning (Appendices 2 and 3). The Sub-Committee requested clarification as to whether there was a creche facility nearby before making a decision. The matter could not be deferred to the next Sub-Committee meeting as, under the Provisions of Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001, if the applicant(s) had not been notified of the decision within the statutory period then it would deemed that prior approval was not required. This application period expired before the next Sub 1

2 Committee meeting on 11 October 2005, and the Chairman therefore referred the application to Planning and Environment Committee in accordance with Council Procedure Rules, Part 3, paragraph 5.2. RECOMMENDATION - That the Planning and Environment Committee consider the matter and make a decision. 2

3 Appendix 1 Report to Chipping Barnet Area Planning Sub Committee 6 September 2005 LOCATION: 29 Station Road, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 1PP. REFERENCE: N12920N/05 Received: 14 Feb 2005 Accepted: 14 Feb 2005 WARD: Oakleigh Expiry: 11 Apr 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: David E Morgan PROPOSAL: Variation to Condition 04 of planning permission reference N12920C/03 dated 17/02/04 relating to details of site levels and building heights. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE INFORMATIVE(S):- 1. The plans accompanying this application are:- 17C received 3 February 2005; Sheet Steel Retaining Wall - Design Check from Alan Moxahay Received 13 April 2005; Additional Information on Sheet Piling Received 08 July The reasons for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision are as follows: - i) The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan, Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Draft Modifications, approved 28 June In particular the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1 (Character / Environment), G18 (Residential Character), H6.1 (Extensions), and T1.1 (Character / Design Issues). Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Draft Modifications, approved 28 June 2005: GBEnv1 (Character), D2 (Built Environment / Character), and H27 (Extensions to Houses and Detached Buildings), and: ii) The proposal is acceptable for the following reason(s): - The variation to levels does not result in a significant negative impact upon neighbouring properties. 1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Relevant Planning History: 3

4 N12920C/03 Conversion of existing building into 8 apartments, erection of two detached chalet bungalows with garages, car parking, associated Levels and building heights. Approved 17 February Consultations and views Expressed: Neighbours Consulted: 76 Replies: 1 The occupiers of 55 Somerset Road have raised the following objections: That the developer s actions in changing the levels at the site were performed without the benefit of planning permission. That the planning department can not offer practical assistance to concerned parties when building works of this type take place. That the changes in levels which have taken place have resulted in a change in the level of the water table eventually resulting in the death of a mature tree in the rear garden of their property. Internal Consultations: Trees: The only trees under TPO at 29 Station Road were to the front of the site and have been taken into account during earlier decisions. Whilst the Concerns of the occupiers of 55 Somerset Road have been noted and have been previously investigated the tree to which they refer is not included in the TPO. As work has already been undertaken that has affected the trees it would not be reasonable to recommend refusal of this application on tree grounds as the damage has, apparently, already been caused, nor would it appear reasonable to include the trees in a new order because of their treatment, condition and proximity to built form. Although there may be some issues of civil redress this would not be a matter for the council especially in the light of common law in relation to trees encroaching over boundaries. 2. PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings 29 Station Road, a Victorian property, has been converted to seven 2 bedroom and one 1 bedroom flats, to the rear of the site two chalet bungalows have been erected with rooms in the roof space. Car parking has been provided on site for 15 cars with 2 of these as attached garages to the chalet bungalows. Levels rise to the rear of the site. To the rear of the chalet bungalows a retaining wall of 3m in height has been erected allowing earth to be removed resulting in flat garden areas for the two properties. Retaining walls have also been put in place to the sides to prevent earth movement to neighbouring properties on Station Road. 4

5 At the rear of the application site behind the retaining wall a rise of 2.2m from the new garden level occurs in the south corner rising gradually to 3.1m in the east corner. Proposals Retention of levels as excavated to create a flat rear garden at the same level as the mews Villas ground floors. The excavation has occurred for a depth of 5.8m from the rear of Mews Villa B and is 20m in width, a step in then occurs to the Rear of Mews Villa A of 4.6m before widening by an additional 6.4m. The excavation is surrounded by retaining walls to prevent slippage and earth movement. In the approved scheme these rear gardens were seen to rise gradually from the rear of the Mews Villas by 2.24m in height to the south west corner of the site and to 3.01m in the south east cornet of the site at the rear boundary. Material Planning Considerations The change in levels that has occurred from the approved scheme does not result in a significant impact upon the visual or residential amenities of neighbouring residents. Calculations have been provided to show that the retaining wall to the rear of 29 Station Road is sufficient to perform its role and prevent slippage to neighbouring properties. Though the tree in question at 55 Somerset Road may be seen to have amenity value the damage, which has occurred to the tree is not a matter for planning as the tree in question is not under TPO protection. 3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS Whilst the works were carried out without the benefit of planning permission the developers did respond to enforcement s request for a retrospective planning application. The planning department is unable to become involved in a civil matter of the kind that has occurred between 55 Somerset Road and 29 Station Road, action was taken to assure that a retrospective planning application was made during which any material planning considerations have been considered. 4. CONCLUSION The change in levels which has occurred does not have a significant direct impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, issues raised in relation to non TPO trees can not in this instance be considered as a reason for refusal and the application is therefore recommended for approval. 5

6 MOWBRAY ROAD MOWBRAY ROAD N12920N/05 29 Station Road DUNCAN CLOSE STATION ROAD Based on the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty s Stationary Office Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Barnet LA Scale 1:1250 6

7 Appendix 2: Report to Chipping Barnet Area Planning Sub Committee 6 September 2005 LOCATION: BARNET GENERAL HOSPITAL, Wellhouse Lane, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 3DJ. REFERENCE: N01070CC/05 Received: 1 Aug 2005 Accepted: 1 Aug 2005 WARD: Underhill Expiry: 26 Sep 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: John Richardson PROPOSAL: Installation of 10m slimline pole with 3no. integral antennas and associated equipment cabinets in the grounds of Barnet General Hospital, Chipping Barnet. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS 1. This development must be begun not later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s) and hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality. INFORMATIVE(S):- 1. The plans accompanying this application are:- INF01 Plan Nos: Developers Notice; Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines; OS Map Indicating Coverage and Search Areas; Map of discounted Alternative Sites; Letter to Daniel West, Facilities Manager of Barnet PCT; T-Mobile Plot Ref: 35206; T-Mobile Plot Ref: 35205; T-Mobile Plot Ref: 35204; 50632/01 Rev A; 50632/02 Rev A; 50632/03 Rev A; 50632/04 Rev A; Cell Ref: Supporting Statement. All received 1 August The Applicant's attention is drawn to the Government's national guidance and Stewart Report on health issues arising from the installation of telecommunications equipment. In particular, the Applicant should ensure the level of emissions does not exceed the 7

8 guidelines recommended by the International Committee on Nonionizing Radiation Protection Standards. 3. The reasons for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision are as follows: - i) The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan, Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Draft Modifications, approved 28 June In particular the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G2, G3, G4, T1.1, T3.1, T8.1 and O1.1 Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Draft Modifications, approved 28 June 2005: GBEnv1 (Character), D2 (Built Environment / Character), and H27 (Extensions to Houses and Detached Buildings), and: ii) The proposal is acceptable for the following reason(s): - Given the design and siting of the proposed Slimline Monopole and equipment cabins, it is considered not be detrimental to the visual appearance of the site or the character of the area. 1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Relevant Policies: Adopted UDP (1991): G1, G2, G3, G4, T1.1, T3.1, T8.1, and O1.1 Revised Deposit Draft Modifications approved 28 June 2005: GBEnv1, GBEnv2, Green Belt, D1, D2, D7 and D16 Relevant Planning History: Consultations and views Expressed: Neighbours Consulted: Replies: 11 The objections received can be summarized as follows: Health concerns in relation to the stronger G3 Masts. Inappropriate development at the hospital site. Proposal is too close to residential properties. Site notices have not been put in place. Consultation has not taken in a wide enough area and was incorrectly addressed in the case of Lingholm Way. Consultation has not allowed a sufficient time for response. Not all properties within the 200m radius have been consulted. The time of year of the application means that many residents are on holiday, the MP s surgeries are also not running regularly at the moment. There is no need for the mast in the light of coverage for other mobile operators. 8

9 Proximity of the mast to the hospital nursery and Whitings Hill Primary School. Proximity of the mast to maternity and neo-natal clinics. Presence of the mast would result in a drop in house prices and may make properties unsaleable. The mast would have an inappropriate visual impact in an area of small houses. Mast will give off electrical interference which may effect both residential and hospital Computing equipment and television reception. Alternative sites of a lower population density have not been explored. Mast is not for the benefit of the local community. Mast may have an adverse impact upon wildlife. 2. PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The application site is on the hospital grounds of Barnet General Hospital, a site with a range of both recently constructed modern and older hospital buildings. The proposed site for the monopole is in the hospital car park situated 80m to the south east from the main hospital building, and 15m to the west of the Mortuary, the nearest residential properties are 132 and 134 Bells Hill 90m to the south east. To the south west of the proposed site is the fence separating Barnet hospital from Bells Hill Cemetery. A variety of saplings and more mature deciduous and coniferous trees runs along this boundary varying in height between 4m and 8m and providing a measure of screening. Proposals It is proposed to install a 10m high monopole with three No. antennas for 3G use with 3 associated equipment cabinets positioned 15m from the western corner of the mortuary building. Of the three associated equipment cabinets two are of 1.2m in height with the remaining cabinet at 1.5m in height. These would be positioned in line to the south east of the monopole in parallel to the fence line and would be surrounded with paving slabs. Material Planning Considerations Government advice with regards to telecommunications is detailed in PPG8, published in August It states that the Government s policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. Local Authorities have been advised to respond positively to telecommunications development proposals whilst balancing the need for increased service with the potential impact on surrounding localities. 9

10 The impact on the visual amenity and the appropriateness of such a development in this area has therefore to be considered in this application. The Barnet UDP policy (1991) T8.1 and policy D16 (Revised Deposit Draft UDP 2001) indicates that it is paramount to ensure that the erection of telecommunications masts does not have any adverse effects on the sky-line or the openness of the green belt, the character of the locality or the appearance of the property. It is considered that in terms of design the slimline telecoms mast would not adversely affect the character of the area due to its size, siting and visual appearance. The siting of the proposal in an area where many streetlights of a similar appearance are present is a factor in this decision as are screening effects from the presence of the mortuary building in close proximity to the application site which would provide screening from the south east and east of the site and the existing trees along the north east edge of the cemetery will provide screening from views from the south and west. Health issues are of great concern to the public in general as regards the erection of mobile communications masts. The Stewart Report (2000) found that while the balance of evidence does not suggest that mobile phone technology puts the health of the general population at risk, the possibility of harm couldn t be ruled out. The report suggests a precautionary approach. The adoption of the stringent guidelines as set out by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is part of the precautionary approach. In recent appeal decisions on the perception of health in relation to mobile communications masts, it has been consistently stated by Inspectors that: In the Governments view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them. An ICNIRP compliance notice for the predicted field strengths for proposed installation has been submitted with the application. This certificate shows that the maximum signal strength is within ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines. In recent Public Inquiries into refusals of planning permissions for such mobile telecommunications masts where perception of health has been cited as a reason for refusal and the appellant has lodged a cost application, Inspectors are awarding costs against the Local Authority if the scheme was compliant with ICNIRP guidelines. With regard to the proposed equipment cabins it is considered that this structure would not be visually obtrusive to the detriment of the character of the area or the visual and residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties due to its siting, orientation and scale. 3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS Consultation 10

11 Three site notices were posted with the required 21 day consultation period to accompany this application. A reconsultation for properties on Lingholm Way has occurred with the required 21 day consultation period being given. For a mast of this type it would be standard practice to consult within a radius of 100m, due to the small number of residential properties that this radius would have taken into account the radius was extended to cover an area of 200m from the application site, no evidence has been provided of addresses which have not been consulted within this 200m radius. The time of year is not a material planning consideration that would allow an extended consultation period. The applicant has submitted coverage plans 35204; and to show a requirement for the proposed G3 mast to close a gap in T-Mobile G3 coverage. Observing the OS map Indicating Coverage and search areas no sites of a lover population density are available for the siting of the mast. Consultation has taken place with the hospital nursery, the installation is within National, international and WHO Health and Safety Guidelines and is fully compliant with the ICNIRP. The rear garden of the closest residential properties to the mast site is 80m from the proposed site. Any impact upon house prices or saleability is not a material planning consideration. The effect of electrical interference from such a mast site is not considered to be significant. Other issues addressed in main report 4. CONCLUSION In conclusion it is considered that the design of the slim-line monopole and the equipment cabin would not be detrimental to the visual appearance of the character of the area. Approval recommended. 11

12 N01070CC/05 Barnet General Hospital, Wellhouse Lane Based on the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty s Stationary Office Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Barnet LA Proposed Mast Position Scale 1:

13 ADDENDUM Appendix 3 Page 87. Barnet General Hospital N1070CC/05 Amend recommendation to read as follows: That Prior Approval is required for siting and appearance of the proposed installation of a 10m slimline pole with 3 no. integral antennais and associated equipment cabinet and is APPROVED subject to the following conditions:- (conditions remain as per report) Total number of objections = 71 1 No. petition of 410 Signatures From Local Residents and workers at Barnet General Hospital entered on their behalf by Mr Mick Printemps. 54 additional objection letters were received outlining concerns already summarised in the written report, in addition to these the following issues were raised: The local area is densely populated and therefore the ICNIRP Guidelines are not relevant. The description given on the consultation is misleading A loss of amenity will result from the perceived health risk. No options of sharing were proposed. No consultation has occurred for the hospital staff. ICNIRP Guidelines are out of date. Local residents with existing health problems will experience an additional impact from the mast. The precautionary principle recommended by the Stewart report is not being taken into account in the determination of the application. T- Mobile have not demonstrated a required need for the mast. Proposal is physically and socially unacceptable to the community. Insufficient information has been provided for an informed decision to be made. The power of the proposed installation is close to the maximum permitted. 13