Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that it was proposed that the mast referred to in this application would replace the temporary mast currently in place.  The Committee were required to determine the application as the height of the proposal could not be dealt with under delegated powers.  He explained that Airbus had not objected to the proposal and that the recommendation was for approval. 

            The Housing and Planning Solicitor referred to paragraph 7.01 of the report and advised that the word ‘temporary’ was an error in the report and should be disregarded and confirmed that this proposal was for a permanent telecommunications mast.  

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the Civil Aviation Authority was responsible for activity around airspace and suggested that they would have objected if they were not in agreement with the proposal or if it was not safe for aircraft.  Airbus Operations had not raised any objection to the proposal.

            On the issue of sharing masts, Councillor Chris Bithell asked whether there were other masts in the area that the telecommunication equipment could be attached to rather than erecting this mast.  He raised concerns that nearby residents would be able to see the mast. 

            The officer advised that a request had been submitted to the applicant to site the antenna on the corner of the building but this had not been possible.  He said that there were no other masts in the area that could provide the coverage that was required and added that operators were obliged to share masts where possible.  The mast would have little visual impact when compared to the A380 building. 

            In summing up, Councillor Butler said that there were no neighbouring properties in the vicinity of the mast and that siting it in this location could prevent additional masts needing to be positioned in the village of Broughton. 

            On the issue raised by Councillor Bithell about operators sharing masts, the Development Manager advised that sharing telecommunications masts would normally be considered but it was not possible to do so on this application.                     

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).