Agenda item

REFUSED (In accordance with officer recommendation)

The Chair and Vice Chair had visited site the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report setting out the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.  He also advised that further information had been received in relation to the generator which would run powered by diesel for 3 to 4 hours and then by battery for 6 to 8 hours.  A photo montage had also been received and was incorporated in the presentation.

The following made representations to the Committee under the Public Participation at meetings scheme:

·         Alison Hughes, Applicant – Statement read out by an Officer in the Democratic & Legal Support Team.

A motion to refuse the item in accordance with Officer recommendation was proposed and seconded.

Members discussed the visual impact of the proposed mast and the impact on the tranquillity of the area surrounding the application site balanced with the potential public benefit of the mast.

A vote to refuse the application in line with the Officer recommendation was taken and carried.

RESOLVED

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1. Visual harm to valued landscape character and appearance especially from the mast top sky-lining in key views from the north and south west across the reservoir.

2. Harm to valued landscape character from the tarmac access road and new entrance coupled with the inappropriate fencing to the main compound.

3. The use of generator to provide power is unsustainable and contrary to Policy CC1 and in absence of any detailed noise report proving otherwise, generator noise would likely cause harm to the tranquillity of area and neighbouring amenity.

4. The screening effect provided by the surrounding trees are outside of the applicant’s ownership and control. Trees are shown to be removed to accommodate the development however no tree report has been submitted to cover this or to provide a plan for the long term management of the tree cover to maintain screening effect. In the absence of a suitable mechanism to secure control over the long term retention and suitable management/planned replacement of the immediate surrounding tree cover, the proposed mast could become a more intrusive feature, causing further harm to the special quality of the landscape.

5. Insufficient information on ecological issues as desk-based assessment recommendation of follow up reports have not been carried out so potential harm and a net benefit to biodiversity cannot be established.

6. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies GSP1, CC1, GSP3, L1, DMU4, DMC3, DMC11, DMC13, and the NPPF.