| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The development cannot be granted prior approval as to the siting and appearance of the development. The visual impact of the development on the No.14 Rollesby Conservation Area, the Grade II* Listed Church of St George and the surrounding area as a whole have not been minimised as far as practicable. This harm arises from the development's siting immediately adjacent to the highway and its situation in an exposed, open landscape with limited existing tree screening, compounded by the inclusion of a large area of hardstanding within the proposal and the proposed surrounding compound fencing. The prominence of the mast without the benefit of existing screening would cause harm to the setting of the No.14 Rollesby Conservation Area and the nearby listed buildings including the grade II* listed Church of St George and a detrimental impact to the character and appearance and public appreciation of these heritage assets, an erosion of the open landscape character, and introduce an incongruous form of development given the rural context and appearance of the area.
The proposal therefore fails to comply with the Conditions set out in A.2 of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order (2015), as amended ('the GPDO'). The development also does not comply with paragraph 120 (section 10) of the NPPF, and would be contrary to the expectations of policy CS10 of the Core Strategy, E5 of the Local Plan Part 2 and draft policy DHE4 of the Emerging Local Plan regarding the need to conserve and enhance the character and appearance of heritage assets and their settings, and the duties set out within Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. |
| 2. | The development comprising both mast and apparatus and the large area of hardstanding cannot be granted prior approval as to the siting and appearance of the development. The application has not sought to minimise the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land through the proposed siting of the development. The application site is classified as Grade 1 agricultural land, the most valuable resource available. The application has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the classification is inappropriate, nor that the development would avoid compromising other agricultural operations on the remaining agricultural unit.
The proposal therefore fails to comply with the Conditions set out in A.2 of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order (2015), as amended ('the GPDO'). The development is also contrary to the need to preserve the best and most versatile agricultural land and minimise losses wherever possible, as set out in section 15 (paragraph 187(b)) of the NPPF, and policy CS6(j) of the Core Strategy. |
| 3. | The inability to mast share by upgrading the existing mast approximately 100m to the north has not been sufficiently justified. It is stated that technical and estates issues mean the existing ground based mast cannot be upgraded to support new 5G antennas for the operator. However, this has not been evidenced and an explanation of the technical issues has not been provided. The proposal has not been supported by sufficient justification as to why the existing mast cannot be upgraded, for example by replacing it with a heavier duty mast to support an increase in height.
The proposal therefore fails to comply with paragraphs 120 and 122(c) of the NPPF. In doing so it also fails to minimise impact on the surrounding area, the No.14 Rollesby Conservation Area and the Grade II* Listed Church of St George in accordance with the Conditions set out in A.2 of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, of the GPDO. |
| 4. | The proposal goes beyond what can be permitted under Schedule 2, Part 16 of the GPDO as the development includes a 10m by 5m (50m2) hard standing which cannot be permitted within Schedule 2, Part 16 Class A of the GPDO as it exceeds the parameters for associated development set out at Part 16 Class A Condition A.(5). |
| 5. | The proposal includes a 2.1m compound fence enclosing the development. Provision for fencing in conjunction with telecommunications equipment is provided within Part 16 Class A. However, it is not considered that a fence of more than 2m is 'reasonably required' and the need for one of this height has not been justified within the terms of Part 16 Class A Condition A.(5). |
