Agenda item

(Councillor Groogan re-joined the meeting at this point)

(Councillors Collins, Garrett, Hussey and Murphy left the room at this point)

            The Committee was advised that the following application had been referred to it by an Elected Member.

            The Principal Planning officer provided the Members with the details of the application for a 17.5metre high telecommunications column, with associated antennae and equipment cabinets. 

            She advised the Committee that the key considerations in the assessment of the proposals included the impact on visual amenity and the local environment, the impact on residential amenity and government support for provision of full and up to date telecommunications coverage.

            The Members were advised that 18 objections had been received in response to the application, including one from an elected Member on behalf of constituents.  The Case officer explained that the issues raised included that the proposal would impact on the visual amenity and character of the area, impact on pedestrian safety, land ownership, health concerns, private views and property prices.

            She explained that the planning officers felt that, while it was important to continue to support investment in high quality communications infrastructure, it needed to be balanced against policy and must not be to the detriment of residential and visual amenity.  She explained that she felt that the applicant should look at a more suitable site which was less visually obtrusive.  She added that the development had not been sited in order to minimise environmental impact and it would provide a cluttered and unattractive pedestrian environment.

            The Committee was advised that the developer had submitted supporting information advising that a new site was required for densification reasons in order to address 4G capacity and congestion due to higher traffic volumes in the immediate area.  The Members were advised that, where possible, shared sites were used but that it was not possible in this case as the only nearby site was working to optimum level and was unable to provide a suitable degree of coverage for local users.

            The Deputy Chairperson welcomed Mr. L. Ross agent, to the meeting.  Mr. Ross explained that the mast was to provide coverage for O2 and Vodafone services.  He explained that infrastructure was required in the proposed area as signal was dropping towards Finaghy.  In discussing the other location sites which had been outlined by Planners, he outlined that the grounds of Musgrave Park Hospital were not considered as they did not install masts in hospitals and that the private landowner of Kings Hall development had advised that it was not possible during the course of the development of that site.  He explained that the Balmoral Golf Club was unsuitable due to the Landscape Policy.  He added that masts were regularly erected close to residential properties and that the infrastructure was essential in order to improve signal across the City.

(Councillors Collins, Garrett and Hussey re-joined the meeting at this point.)

            The Committee agreed to refuse the application and delegated power to the Director of Planning and Building Control for the final wording of the refusal reasons.