Issue - meetings

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

The officer explained that this was a full application for the replacement and relocation of the existing 10m high monopole with a 12.0m high alpha monopole, installation of 3 no. equipment cabinets and associated development.  The proposal was to improve the level of coverage in the vicinity.

Due to the increased height and design of the new mast it would be more prominent than the one it replaced.  However the additional impact was such that the development would not have a significantly greater or detrimental impact upon the street scene and surrounding townscape.  Views of the mast were largely obscured by buildings and mature vegetation.  Dwellings to the north of the site were over 35 metres away and the dwelling to the south was 75 metres away from the site.           

Some concerns had been raised on potential public health concerns which were detailed in the report.

                        Mr K. Hughes spoke against the application on behalf of Gwernymynydd Community Council on the following grounds: siting of the mast; economic benefit should not outweigh health concerns of the community; radiation splay at the same level as the bedrooms of the dwelling opposite; non-ionising radiation; height of the mast; inconclusive evidence on health issues from the effect of mobile phone masts but there was evidence of cancer clusters that had been found around phone masts; and other health problems.

                        Councillor Wisinger moved the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He commented on the health concerns that had been raised and said there was no proof of any health hazards.  He also commented on the benefit to the local community that the monopole would bring.

                        Councillors Bithell and Butler also said there was no medical evidence on the health concerns raised, as was outlined in the report.  At the site visit, Councillor Butler noted there were a large number of street lights in close proximity and therefore felt the monopole would not be out of keeping in the area.

                        Councillor Matthews said she had looked at monopoles throughout the country and they were not usually so close to dwellings.  On non-ionising radiation, she said the radiation from a monopole was constant so she felt there would be damage to human cells.  The radiation emitted would be level with the first floor of the property adjacent to the monopole. 

She said the International Commission on Non-Ionising Protection issued guidelines which were adhered to by applications for any monopole but that the most recent published research was from 2008.  It claimed the radiation diminished in strength as the distances increased but she felt this was a flawed view.  There had been no further published papers as there was not enough evidence due to the significant use of mobile phones only being over the last  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135