Agenda item

To determine the application

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Skoulding asked whether the aerials are secured and concreted in so they cannot fall over? David Rowen stated that he was not aware whether the aerials are solidly attached into the ground and from the photographs he has seen they appear to be attached to the fence.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that it is his understanding that the aerials should be fixed to the ground in some way or another as they are over a certain height and would need to be fixed in some way or another to the ground to negate any issues caused in the event of a lightning strike.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that they are not concreted in, and the applicant has stated that on the application form that should permission be granted they will then be secured by concrete, however, at this time they are secured to the fence.

Members asked questions, made comments, and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that officers have made the correct recommendation with the application. He added that the aerials are only secured to the fence and there are two aerials at an angle and hanging over the path. Councillor Murphy stated that one is fixed to the chimney breast and is very high and, in his opinion, they are very unsightly. He expressed the opinion that the aerials are very out of keeping with the area and as they are on a corner plot, two roads see them which, in his view, is unacceptable.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he is aware of a historical application where the householder used the masts as a form of communication due to a disability and that application was agreed. He stated that, in his view, he does not think that the aerials are causing harm, and they are no different to an aerial on a chimney. Councillor Sutton stated that the personal circumstances of the applicant are not known, and they have stated that it is not a permanent structure. He questioned whether they could be approved subject to the stipulation of a two-year permission and then reviewed.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he did not see them at first when he undertook a site visit. He expressed the view that the aerials are not terribly significant, and he does not a problem with them. Councillor Cornwell stated that with regard to the safety aspect that should be the responsibility of the owner of the aerials to ensure that they are secure and safe.

·         Councillor Skoulding stated that he has no problems with regard to the aerials as long as they are concreted into the ground and are safe.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that the application appears to be before the committee due to the fact that the neighbouring property objects to them being there. She added that there are no other objections and she added that the mast does not appear to be any different to a pole with a sky dish attached to it. Councillor Mrs Davis asked whether, if approved, a condition could be added to state that the aerials are concreted in.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he called the application in as he thought it would be of interest to the committee. He added that he does see too much wrong with the application and added that there is an electricity substation next door to it. Councillor Connor referred to 9.5 of the officer’s report where it states that the concerns which have been raised are with regards to safety, rather than anything else and if the aerial were concreted in then that would, in his opinion, alleviate the concerns that have been highlighted.

·         Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the aerials could be a lifeline for somebody to assist with their health and well-being but would like to see them concreted in and installed properly. She noted that Chatteris Town Council support the application and she agrees that the application should be approved.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the neighbour complained when the aerial was on the back of the property, however, the aerials have now been fixed onto the side of the property. He added that if permission was granted the applicant has stated that the aerials will be concreted in.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that within the application there is no indication stated on how the aerials will be secured. He added that he agrees that they need to be fixed in a safe manner and expressed the view that until that information is provided, he will not be supporting the application. Councillor Miscandlon stated that he is aware that there are regulations with regard to masts and stated that he would be extremely concerned that an eight-metre pole had fallen because it had not been secured properly.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked officers whether if approved there could a condition added to include the details of how the pole could be secured. Nick Harding stated that, in his opinion, that would involve straying into methods of construction which is falls outside of the remit of planning, so that would not be possible.

·         The Legal Officer stated that he has considered this and, in his opinion, a condition could be included given that the aerials are in place already and the application is a retrospective application. The committee could state that they have not had the opportunity to look at the method of installation and, therefore, a condition could be imposed to state that the aerials will be removed unless a scheme for their safe installation is submitted and approved by the Council in a specified amount of time.

·         Councillor Cornwell recalled that, when this type of application was considered before, there was a requirement in the licence that the applicant has to have, and the installation of the aerials linked to the licence and historically it was dealt with in that way.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, subject to an appropriate condition being added in consultation with the Planning and Legal Officer.

(Councillor Murphy registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of Chatteris Town Council, but takes no part in planning matters)