Agenda item

            The Case officer presented the key aspects of the application to the Members.

            She outlined the key considerations which had been assessed in relation to the proposal, which included the impact on visual amenity, the impact on the local environment and the history of the surrounding area.

            The Committee was advised that there was currently one 17.5metre high mast located directly adjacent to the site, approximately 11.5metres from the proposed mast.

            The Case officer reported that there was an extant approval for a 20metre high telecommunications mast, with shroud enclosed antenna and 3 equipment cabinets, on land at the edge of the footpath 18metres south of the junction of Millfield and Samuel Street.  The Members were advised that the site was located approximately 30-35metres from the site of the current proposal and that, if approved, the proposed development would be built instead of the previously approved development.

            The Case officer advised that one representation had been received from the Department for Communities (DfC).  In addition, she explained that the Council’s City Regeneration and Development section, a consultee, had objected to the development.

            She explained to the Members that it was considered that the cumulative impact of the two masts and seven equipment cabinets over a relatively short distance would result in damage to visual amenity. She added that the proposed development was located adjacent to a development opportunity site, as designated in Draft BMAP and in the Belfast Inner North West Masterplan, and that there were concerns that the proposed development would limit the development potential of the site in terms of providing active frontage and an accessible environment.  The Case officer explained that, while the proposal could bring improvement in terms of communications infrastructure, it was considered that it would result in unacceptable damage to visual amenity and that it had not been sited to minimise environmental impact.

            The Committee welcomed Mr. L. Ross, the agent, to the meeting.  He outlined that:

·      engineers could no longer access their existing mast on top of the nearby Barewood building as it was deemed unsafe;

·      this was a replacement site to an extant approval, LA04/2018/1472/F, as when the applicant had carried out an investigative works at that site, they had discovered infrastructure relating to a number of statutory agencies;

·      the new site was basically the only viable site for the mast and cabinets to be positioned;

·      the new site was a shared site;

·      that it was misleading to say that the works would be “an improvement” as, if they did not replace the mast, there would be no network coverage in that part of the City; and

·      given the concerns raised in relation to the upcoming regeneration in the area, a temporary permission for three years was requested if permanent permission could not be given.

            A Member raised a concern regarding the different responses from two sections within the Council.  The Case officer explained that, while there was a new policy within the draft Planning Strategy, until it was adopted it carried no weight.  She explained that the Development Plan Team’s advice was to assess the application under the BUAP policy and that, given their awareness of the Inner North West Masterplan, officers should engage with the Belfast City Centre Regeneration Team.

            In response to a Member’s query as to why they applicant had chosen that site specifically, the agent explained that the masts had to be relatively close together in order to provide complete coverage and that the applicant was also mindful, generally, not to place masts too close to houses.

            A further Member stated that it was concerning that the statutory consultees had provided no objections to the original proposal site, given that the applicant had subsequently come across substantial infrastructure belonging to them beneath the footpath at that location.

            In response to a Member’s question regarding the footpath width at the location, the Committee was advised that DfI had no objections to the proposals and that the street furniture would not impact on pedestrians access to the pavement.

            A number of Members queried how a temporary approval for three years would work in practice, specifically in the event that redevelopment works in the area were to commence within that timeframe, and whether an impasse would be created between the landowner and the applicant.  The agent explained that, in terms of a developer actually starting construction within the Smithfield area, three years was not a long time and that, if the Committee was to grant temporary permission for three years, the Council would have absolute certainty that the mast would have to be taken down in three years.  He stated that, if an agreement could not be made with the landowner, telecommunications companies actually had a statutory power to place infrastructure on top of buildings

            A Member stated that communications infrastructure was vital for the City and, on balance, given that the period of time granted could be time limited, he felt that the coverage was more important than the temporary impact on the visual amenity at that site.  In addition, he advised that a temporary approval was appropriate in recognising the development opportunity site beside the application site.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Brooks

            Seconded by Alderman Rodgers and

      Resolved - that the Committee agrees to approve the application, in substitute for the extant approval LA04/2018/1472/F, for a temporary period of three years.

            The Director of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee that, in relation to the extant permission on other side of the junction, he would recommend a Section 76 Agreement to rescind that permission and that power also be delegated to him to write up the necessary conditions and a Section 76 Agreement. The Committee agreed to that course of action.