Installation of 1no EE and 1no H3G Antenna at St Margarets, Rottingdean, Brighton

The site and surroundings

St Margarets is a locally listed building in a conservation area, with an existing temporary mast nearby whose permission had expired.

“Chris Stratton addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that this was the only site that works in the valley location. The site was the only location that gave emergency services connectivity. The existing temporary mast in the nearby car park gives 38% of the amount of range that would be offered from St Margaret’s.”

“Councillor Guilmant was informed by the agent that a mapping exercise had been undertaken with St Margarets at the centre. The temporary mast in the nearby car park would give 38% of the coverage that could be achieved from St Margarets. If the temporary mast were increased to 30m, that would give 88% coverage of what the proposals could achieve. It was noted that the only other site looked at was the nearby car park where the temporary mast is located.”

Minutes

The officer recommendation

The officer recommendation was refusal because the proposals were considered to harm heritage assets and increase harm compared with the previous refusal.

“Councillor Earthey was informed by the LPA that the proposals were considered to cause harm to the heritage assets of the conservation area and locally listed building. The proposals are considered to increase the harm with reference to the previously refused scheme. The shroud proposed to obscure the lower mast is not considered to be good. The case officer stated the proposals were being refused regarding the impact.”

“Councillor Cattell was informed that the previous application was refused on impact grounds and these proposals were considered to increase the harm.”

Minutes

Consultation and alternatives

The committee heard that ward councillors had been consulted, a drop-in session had taken place, and alternative locations had been considered.

“The case officer clarified that they had visited the site two weeks ago and the photos were supplied by the applicant, along with substantial information and alternative sites. The objection from the planning team was the harm caused by the proposals. The considerations of the planning inspector from the previous refusal were taken into account.”

“Councillor Hill was informed by the agent that the ward councillors had been consulted, and a drop-in session had been held. Some residents had supported the proposals and other had not. The agent was not able to confirm if that if planning permission was granted there would be more masts in the future, however, they speculated that in the future 6G would require less masts as existing masts could be used.”

Minutes

What speakers said

The residents’ representative raised concerns about future masts and alternative sites, while the agent said the site was needed for coverage and emergency services.

Members’ debate

Members weighed heritage harm and incomplete information against poor network coverage and possible risks to emergency services.

“Councillor Parrott stated they understood the issues and that telecoms were essential and poor networks were a major issue. Emergency services were a real concern with regard to network coverage. On balance the councillor would support the application.”

“Councillor Sheard considered emergency services coverage to be very important and other locations should have been looked at. The councillor considered the application should be returned to the agent for more information to be supplied.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee voted by 7 to 3 to agree with the officer recommendation to refuse.

“A vote was held, and by 7 to 3 the committee agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused for the reasons set out in the report, which the committee agreed to take into consideration.

“RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.”

Minutes