INSTALLATION OF 3NO ROOFTOP TRIPODS ACCOMMODATING 12NO ANTENNA APERTURES, 3NO SUPPORT POLES ACCOMMODATING 4NO TRANSMISSION DISHES, PLUS THE INSTALLATION OF 9NO EQUIPMENT CABINETS AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT THERETO.

This application was reported to the Planning and Licensing committee in

accordance with the requirements of the Council’s constitution.

The application had been deferred from the June committee at the applicant’s request to allow time for revision/further information. This request had been agreed subject to an extension of time. The additional information was considered below.

The application related to a permitted development proposal including antennas, other apparatus, supporting infrastructure and associated equipment cabinets by a telecommunications code system operator (in this case Mobile Broadband Network Limited, i.e. EE and Three [H3G]).

Masefield Court is a 13 storey flat block dating from 1963/4, with two ‘penthouse’ flats on a reduced footprint at the top. This top floor is set in from all side elevations, most notably from the east elevation, and is of reduced storey height. The main body of the building rises 41m from ground level to the top of the perimeter parapet with the penthouse roof a further 1.5 metres higher and a small further element (the lift overrun) set further in from the edges adding a further 1 metre in height. Most of the development relates to (main) roof mounted telecommunications equipment and support structures.

Mr Ovenden summarised the report.  In view of the application being heard via the internet, a statement from the applicant, Mr Allen, was read aloud by the Chair.

Ward Cllrs Naylor and Sarah Cloke spoke in objection to the application. 

Following a full discussion Cllr Chilvers MOVED and Cllr Sanders SECONDED that the application be REFUSED and Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Chilvers, Fryd, Haigh, Jakobsson, Kerslake,  Keeble, McCheyne, Morrissey, Mynott, Miss Sanders, Tanner and Mrs Tierney. (12)

AGAINST: None (0)

ABSTAIN: None (0)

The application was REFUSED UNANIMOUSLY in accordance with the Planning Officer’s recommendation.