PLANNING STATEMENT

1.0 Site and Surroundings

1.1 The site is located between the mainline railway lines in the corner of Chiswick Village.

2.0 Proposal

2.1 The applicant is a code system operator and is legally obliged under the terms of its licence to expand its network to accommodate customer requirements of service and quality. As customers have been multiplying in their numbers and usage, so the need to ensure good quality coverage increases, and therefore there is a need for new installations or the upgrade of certain sites to provide additional call handling capacity. In this case, coverage is poor and new antennae need to be erected.

2.2 The application site is an ideal location for telecommunications equipment, there is sufficient height for the antennae to have a long range and the visual amenity of the area will not be harmed by such development.

2.3 The site is to be shared with an existing telecommunications installation and uses an existing structure, in accordance with government guidelines.

2.4 The applicant proposes to erect antennae and dishes on the roof of the building in order to provide network coverage in an area which has very little.

2.5 The applicant proposes to erect a 29.42 cubic metre equipment cabin alongside the proposed antennae. The cabin is designed to be as minimally intrusive as possible, and as such it is not detrimental to the character of the area.

2.6 Following the recent concerns over the possible health effects associated with telecommunications base stations, it is worth reiterating that there is no general risk to human health indicated by the balance of evidence. A recent letter sent to all Councils and Planning Committees by the Planning Minister states that, if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP guidelines then it should not be necessary to consider health effects further. All Orange installations are well within standards set by national and international radiation guidelines.

2.7 It is submitted that the proposal complies with the provisions of national and local policy, including the UDP.

3.0 Policy Considerations

National Policy

3.1 PPG 1 Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 “General Policy and Principles”

3.2 Paragraph 37 of PPG 1 states:

“In exercising control over development, conditions can be imposed on planning permissions only where there is a clear land-use planning justification for doing so.”

3.3 Paragraph 38 of PPG 1 states:

“Exceptionally, however, the personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, or the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the character of the local community, may be material to the consideration of a planning application. In such circumstances, a permission may be made subject to a condition that it is personal to the applicant.”

3.4 Paragraph 40 of PPG 1 states:

“Where an adopted or approved development plan contains relevant policies, section 54A requires that an application for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise”

3.5 PPG 8 Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 “Telecommunications”

3.6 Paragraph 5 of PPG 8 states:

“The government’s general policy on telecommunications is to facilitate the growth of new and existing systems… Local Planning Authorities should respond positively to telecommunications development proposals, especially where the proposed location is constrained by technical considerations, while taking account of the advice on the protection of urban and rural areas in other planning policy guidance notes.”

3.7 Paragraph 25 of PPG 8 states:

“In cases where full planning applications are needed for telecommunications development, protection from visual damage and the implications fin subsequent network development will be important considerations. For example, in certain circumstances, a higher mast may mean that fewer masts are required overall. The nature of some telecommunications may in some cases bring it into apparent conflict with established local and national planning policies. Masts and antennas often require a particular operating height, typically 20 metres, which allows signals to clear trees and urban clutter. Telecommunications development may therefore need particular locations to work effectively. But those may be exactly the prominent locations that pose challenges to policies for the protection of high quality landscapes and quality in urban areas.”

3.8 Paragraph 26 of PPG 8states:

“Planning Authorities need to realise the special needs and technical problems of telecommunications development. Each application should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include the significance of the proposed development as part of a national network. In many cases, existing policies are framed in terms of conventional buildings and land use and may not be adequate to deal with telecommunications apparatus or other operational needs. Applications should not be refused on the basis of policies which take insufficient account of the growth and characteristics of modem telecommunications.”

3.10 Paragraph 30 of PPG 8 states:

“In some cases, local planning authorities may be disposed to conclude that planning permission ought to be refused because of siting or appearance considerations. But they should first seek to understand the constraints the operator faces, whether due to the nature of the technology or the legal requirement to provide a service. It will clearly improve the chances of an early decision if the operator is prepared to explain the limitations, and discuss the feasibility of alternatives sites.”

3.11 Circular 4/99 “Planning for Telecommunications”

3.12 Circular 11/95 “The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions”

3.13 Paragraph 2 of Circular 11/95 states:

“...conditions can enable many development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission...”

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 It is considered that the proposal would have a minimal impact on the character of the area by virtue of its size, appearance and position. In addition, the fact that the site is shared with an existing installation should address the UDP.

4.2 The equipment to be installed is well within ICNTRP and NRPB guidelines, thus health issues are not a land-use mailer (as detailed in the Planning Minister’s letter to all Councils in England and Wales). The siting and appearance of the equipment have been carefully considered, and the proposal maximises phone coverage whilst minimsing visual impact on the local environment.

4.3 The proposal complies with the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan and the relevant Government guidance and should be approved accordingly.