Issue - meetings

RESOLVED: That application 22/01342/TD be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 90 minutes 45 seconds

N.B – The Chair allowed a short break following the completion of Agenda Item 8.

The Planning Officer advised that 11 objections had been received in total and that further documentation received from the applicant had been shared with Members ahead of the meeting.

The Planning Officer read a written statement from Councillor Chris Hinchliff, as ward Member, who was unable to attend due to a positive Covid test. This statement included:

·         The responses submitted to the application show that there is strong local opposition to the proposals from residents and the Town Council.

·         This is not an attempt to challenge the planning policies, but rather to draw to attention that this new mast infrastructure will not improve the coverage in or benefit the area, where it is generally already good.

·         The proposed mast would be taller than the existing street furniture, but also the roof lines of local residences, and will therefore be visible from these.

·         The prosed introduction of the industrial mast to a predominantly residential area would affect residents quiet enjoyment.

·         The proposals are off a narrow part of Melbourn road and would impose onto the footpath. There would consequently be a negative visual impact on this area of Royston, as outlined in comments from residents and those of the Town Council.

The Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/01342/TD supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The following Members asked questions:

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Morgan Derbyshire

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor Amy Allen

In response to questions, the Planning Officer advised:

·         The description on the application is for 15metres and the plans detail this, unsure why the 20metre pole is shown on the slides.

·         They were unaware how far the site was from the nearest school site.

·         This proposal is for a new installation.

·         Non-Iodising Radiation protection has to be taken into account regarding schools nearby, but there are not further requirements than this for planning considerations and it does not apply to private residencies with children.

The Chair invited Mr Chris Lobb to speak against the application.

Mr Lobb thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation, including:

·         He was a resident of a nearby property and spoke on behalf of other residents.

·         Improving connectivity was important for businesses and individuals.

·         Taking into account sustainable development, it was important that changes were made to improve the future, it should not compromise the present.

·         The small estate has already had additions and developments, including new housing and a bus stop.

·         The nature of the mast will not be suitable for the area and will be an eyesore and will impact those living locally as it will rise above the treeline and no clever design will disguise this.

·         Further developments to the mast, such as installation of CCTV cameras, would impact further on the privacy of local residents.

·         No parking facilities on the A10  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6