Rooftop telecommunications equipment at Flats 34 TO 82 Queensbridge Drive, Ramsgate

What was proposed

Six shared antennas, four dishes, three cabinets and related telecommunications equipment were proposed on the roof of a four-storey residential building.

“LOCATION: Installation of 6no. shared panel antenna, 4no dishes, 3no. unilateral cabinets and telecommunications ancillary equipment.”

Officer report

Why the equipment was needed

The existing equipment in Broad Street had to be removed, and other town-centre locations were considered unsuitable.

“The equipment is required as the telecommunications operator was given notice by the landowner to remove their existing equipment on the roof top of a building in Broad Street…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the equipment’s telecommunications benefits and lack of suitable alternatives outweighed less-than-substantial heritage harm.

“Paragraph 213 of the NPPF advises that any harm to or loss of significance of a heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification, whilst paragraph 215 states that any harm that is less than substantial must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.”

“Appeal decision reference 3325138 allowed the installation of a telecommunications mast within a conservation area in Chislehurst. Whilst the Inspector found that there would be less than substantial harm to the setting of the conservation area from the proposed installation, the appellant had adequately demonstrated that there were no available alternative sites for the development, and overall, the Inspector stated a balance should be struck between visual impact and the…”

Officer report

What consultees said

The conservation officer objected because the equipment would be visible, cluttered and out of keeping, while Environmental Health found no health grounds for refusal.

“The proposed equipment will still be clearly visible from within the Ramsgate Conservation Area, and appear overly cluttered and entirely out of keeping when viewed against the most significant elevations of the host building which face out over Cavendish Street.”

“I object to the proposed installation of 4no. shared panel antenna, 6no dishes, 3no. unilateral cabinets for telecommunications ancillary equipment, given that it will be clearly visible with the Ramsgate Conservation Area, appearing overly cluttered and entirely out of keeping when viewed against the most significant elevations of the host building which face out over Cavendish Street.”

Officer report

What people raised

Six objections and a town council objection concerned visual impact, conservation, health, safety, nearby education facilities, property effects and consultation.

“- Development will be an eyesore and highly visible in the surrounding area. - There is a perfectly acceptable building 'Argyle House' situated nearby. It is a council office building so no resident investments will be affected. Why wasn't this one of the considerations? - Development is located along the flight path of aircraft from Manston Airport, which is scheduled to re-open in 2028, which could pose a threat to public and aircraft safety.”

“Ramsgate Town Council: The council strongly objects to this development due to the impact on the skyscape. We appreciate the need for mobile internet access; however, this should not be in the Conservation area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Austin spoke under the council’s procedure rules, and the Principal Planning Officer outlined the application.

The committee vote

The chair proposed approval, the vice chair seconded it, and the motion was agreed.

“The Chair proposed and Vice Chair seconded that the officer recommendation to APPROVE the application, subject to the following conditions:”

“2 The proposed development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted drawings titled: 315 PROPOSED ANTENNA & SUPPORT STRUCTURE PLAN (uploaded 26.11.2025), 250 PROPOSED SITE ELEVATION (uploaded 26.11.2025), 251 PROPOSED SITE ELEVATION (uploaded 26.11.2025), 150 PROPOSED SITE PLAN (uploaded 26.11.2025) and 004 LEASE DEMISE & SITE LOCATION PLAN (uploaded 01.04.2025).”

Minutes