Location
EUREMICA SELF STORAGE YARD, MORGAN DRIVE, GUISBOROUGH, TS147DH
Proposal
INSTALLATION OF A 17.5 METRE HIGH TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST WITH 3 (NO) ANTENNAS, ONE DISH ANTENNA AND ANCILLIARY EQUIPMENT CABINS
Application Type
TELECOMMUNICATION
Status
Approved
Parish(es)
Guisborough CP
Applicant
HUTCHISON 3G UK
Applicant's Address
Agent
NATHANIEL LICHFIELD AND PARTNERS
Agent's Address
GENERATOR STUDIOS
TRAFALGAR STREET
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
NE1 2LA
Agent's work phone
Agent's email
Case Officer
Miss J Horne
Case Officer Telephone
Case Officer Email
Janet.Horne@redcar-cleveland.gov.uk
Consultation Start
19/10/2004
Weekly List Expiry Date
-
Date Received
04/10/2004
Date Valid
04/10/2004
Expiry
-
Consultation Expiry
11/11/2004
associated_bldreg
-
Decision
APPROVED
Decision Date
03/12/2004
Decision Level
Committee
Committee Date
02/12/2004
| # | Condition Details |
|---|---|
| 1 | (1) The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of FIVE YEARS from the date of this permission. REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. |
| 2 | NOTE: Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan Policies GEN1, SER5 and IND4 were relevant to this decision. |
| 3 | REASON FOR DECISION: Permission is sought to install a 17.5 metres high telecommunications monopole and ancillary development at the Euremica Self Storage Yard, Morgan Drive, Guisborough. Policy GEN1 of the Local Plan seeks to achieve development that respects the character and appearance of the area and that does not compromise highway safety. Policy SER5 places a presumption in favour of telecommunications equipment and where exceptional circumstances are demonstrated in areas such as Special Landscape Areas: Heritage Coast, Listed Buildings etc and taking into account operational and technical considerations the development is sited and designed so as to minimise its visual impact and in the case of large masts, evidence is provided to show that the use of an existing building, mast, or other structure is not possible. Policy IND4 identifies the site as being within an industrial area where business uses, general industry and warehouse uses would be encouraged. The proposed development would be located within an established industrial estate where in area where there a few opportunities to locate on existing tall buildings and structures siting within an industrial area is preferable. In this instance it is considered this development would not so despoil the character and appearance of the area that planning permission ought to be withheld. With regard to health concerns; guidelines for public exposure are issued by the National Radiological Protection Board (2) and by International Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP guidelines are more stringent than the NRPB guidelines by a factor of five. PPG8 states that in the Government’s 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. It remains Central Government’s responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. The appeal proposal would comply with the ICNIRP guidelines. A perceived fear that could affect the amenity of an area, even when not based upon scientific fact, is capable of being a material consideration. The proposed monopole due to its location would do little to stimulate fear, whether rational or otherwise among local residents. Regarding electro-magnetic emissions, the applicant presents evidence to confirm that the proposed equipment and installation is designed to be in full compliance with the requirements of the radio frequency public exposure guidelines of ICNIRP. The emissions profiles presented by the appellant show that the radio field strengths experienced by the public from the base station would be only a fraction of the stringent ICNIRP requirements. Therefore the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular reference to perceived health risks. |
| Consultee Name | Date Letter Sent | Consultation Expiry Date |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Services (Regulatory) | 15/10/2004 | - |
| Address | Date Sent | Date Reconsulted | Expiry Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNIT 1 MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH TS147DH | 19/10/2004 | - | 09/11/2004 |
| UNIT 2 MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH TS147DH | 19/10/2004 | - | 09/11/2004 |
| UNIT 3 MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH TS147DH | 19/10/2004 | - | 09/11/2004 |
| UNIT 4 MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH TS147DH | 19/10/2004 | - | 09/11/2004 |
| UNIT 8 MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH TS147DH | 19/10/2004 | - | 09/11/2004 |
| UNIT 7 MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH TS147DH | 19/10/2004 | - | 09/11/2004 |
| ROYAL MAIL GUISBOROUGH DELIVERY OFFICE MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH TS147GB | 19/10/2004 | - | 09/11/2004 |
| UNIT 6 MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH TS147DH | 19/10/2004 | - | 09/11/2004 |
| UNIT 5 MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH TS147DH | 19/10/2004 | - | 09/11/2004 |
| MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH | 19/10/2004 | - | - |
| BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIES MORGAN DRIVE GUISBOROUGH | 25/10/2004 | - | - |
| Site or Press | Description | Display Date | Expiry Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| S | SITE NOTICE ONLY | 21/10/2004 | 11/11/2004 |