Agenda item

To consider any business that the Chairman rules may be dealt with under Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Point Of Order

2018/0968 – 7 Tanglewood Close, Pyrford, Woking Borough Council

The Chairman indicated that he had been contacted by several parties involved in Item No. 6f Tanglewood Close, Pyrford concerning the right of objectors to appoint a public speaker to represent them.  As a result the Chairman requested the Head of Democratic and Legal Services to enquire into whether or not the objectors had such a right.  It was reported that the pre requisite condition of at least 10 persons objecting had not been met and there was no right to speak.  The Chairman explained he was unable to permit public speaking in Item No. 6f nor in any other case where the requisite number had not been reached.

2019/0380 – Egley Road, Woking, GU22 ONG

[Note 1: The reason for this item of Urgent Business was that if a decision had not been issued by the Local Planning Authority by 8 June 2019 the proposal would receive deemed consent].

An application for approval of the installation of Phase 5 telecoms street pole, 3 antennas situated within the pole, and equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto.

Ward Councillor, Councillor Ashall spoke in objection to the application.  He further added that the application before the Committee had arisen once Ward Councillors were contacted directly by Harlequin in December last year, to consultant on the proposal of the siting. Major concerns were raised on the proposed site which was deemed unacceptable.  This had been due to the site being adjacent to an emerging site for green space which would be a natural separation of between Woking Urban area and the Village of Mayford in the DPD site allocations. The applicant had been advised by Ward Councillors to contact the Mayford Village Society to address any concerns towards the proposed site.  It had been highlighted that Ward Councillors were not advised of the outcomes by the applicant.

Some Councillors expressed concerns on the proximity of the proposed mast to both the Hoe Valley and Barnsbury Schools, which was believed to pose health risks.

A query elevated on the distance of maximum intensity of the beam to the nearby schools including health risks. The Planning Officer explained that both schools had been consulted prior to submission and no responses were received and that the proposal complies with the ICNIRP guidelines limiting exposure.

It had been highlighted that the applicant had considered alternative sites, this led to  Members expressing their frustrations on the preferred proposed site for the construction of the mast. Discussions ensued on the alternate siting options, health risks and the appearance of mast. 

Thomas James, The Development Manager, prompted Committee Members to be mindful whilst considering the application for its own merits which included site and appearance.

Councillor Ashall moved and Councillor Elson seconded the motion to refuse the application on the grounds of the proposed siting and appearance.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the votes for refusal of the application were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                 Cllrs Ashall, Aziz, Boote, Elson, Hussain, Lyons, Martin and Morales.

                                                TOTAL:  8

Against:                                   None.

                                                TOTAL: 0

Present but not voting:            Cllr Chrystie (Chairman)

                                                TOTAL: 1

The application was therefore refused.

          RESOLVED

          That the planning application be refused.