Issue - meetings

[NOTE 1: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr David Noakes attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application. The applicant/agent was not present to speak in support.]

[NOTE 2: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that twenty-seven additional letters of objection had been received which mainly reiterated the comments already summarised within the representations section of the report.]

The Committee considered an application that sought prior approval for a proposed 5G telecoms installation: H3G Phase 8 18m high street pole c/w wrap-around cabinet and 3 further additional equipment cabinets.

Then Chairman had asked for an explanation as to why other locations had been discounted. This information was included in detail on a slide in the Planning Officers presentation. The Chairman questioned whether 5G masts could be erected on top of buildings; the Planning Officer did not know what the options would be regarding this or whether the applicant had considered it.

Following a question regarding the height of the tree on the plan in relation to the 5G mast, the Planning Officer confirmed that the mast would need to project higher than the tree to allow it to function.

Some members felt like alternatives sites had not been considered fully and queried why the aggregates yard had not been considered. The Planning Officer advised that the aggregates site was allocated under the Site Allocations DPD and the installation of such a mast would be likely to have an impact on future residential layout of this site. Policy MC16 of the Surrey Minerals Plan meant that this site was safeguarded for development.

Some Members commented that the Committee needed to consider whether this would harm the character of the area; otherwise, the application needed to be considered as it was before them, and the Committee did not have the remit to suggest alternative sites. The NPPF also confirmed that the international position on 5G masts was that they were certified as safe; the Committee members and Officers did not have the technical knowledge to argue otherwise.

The majority of Members had sympathy with the Objector, however as the application was for prior approval, there was very little scope for the Committee to object.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation.  The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs T Aziz, A Boote, G Cosnahan J Brown, S Dorsett, L Morales (Chairman), P Graves, T Spenser and M Whitehand.

                                 TOTAL:  9

Against:                              Cllr S Oades.

                                 TOTAL:  1

Present but not voting:      None

                                 TOTAL:  0

The application was therefore approved.

RESOLVED

That prior approval be granted.