Installation of a 15 metre high monopole accommodating 3no antennas and 2no 600mm dishes with 3no equipment cabinets all located within a 7 metre by 7metre stock proof fenced compound.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application and with reference to the drawings and photo montage displayed, she drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  She confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit the previous day and had viewed the site, walked the public footpath, walked around Diddlebury and had viewed the site from the points where the photographs had been taken, and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. 

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

Councillor D Hedgley, representing Diddlebury Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.  In response to questions from Members, Mr Hedgley confirmed that an invitation to Mono to meet with the Parish Council had been declined.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15) Councillor Cecilia Motley, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement.  She then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         Although the village is very linear in nature, actually all parts of the village related closely to each other to the extent that any development would affect the whole village;

·         Diddlebury, in common with most of the Corvedale, suffered from dismal mobile signals – therefore, it was not the principle of the phone mast that was an issue but clearly the location and the concerns regarding whether the health of the villagers in the future could be affected;

·         Location – Mono had advised by letter that a number of sites within Diddlebury had been considered and that this site was the preferred site.  The letter indicated that a list of other sites had been considered and discounted.  Two of them, Diddlebury village church and a grass verge to the east of the village, were appropriately discounted as being unsuitable.  One of the listed option sites did not exist.  This left two options other than the Moors which would have been suitable (one being a local farm just outside the main village and the other land owned by a local landowner).  Neither had been approached which was contrary to what had been stated in a letter from Mono.  The postal address for the local farm was incorrectly stated in the letter which might explain why the landowner had not received anything and the local landowner who had indicated that he would be willing to accommodate a mast had received no communication from Mono;

·         Residents and the Parish Council had expressed serious concerns regarding the siting of the phone mast and the close proximity to houses where young children live and play, as well as the local primary school.  She noted that all CTIL and Telefonica installations were designed to be fully compliant with the public exposure guidelines but commented that such august bodies were not always infallible and could fail to calculate correctly the future risks; and

·         In conclusion, she recommended that Vodafone and CTIL be requested to withdraw this application and resubmit a proposal on a suitable site of which there were many in the Corvedale.

Mr C Taylor, the developer, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.  In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Mr Taylor explained the reasons for choosing this site and why other sites would be technically unsuitable, and confirmed that he was not able to make a decision to withdraw the application in order that other sites could be further investigated.

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments of all speakers and considered the submitted plans.  Some Members expressed their disappointment regarding the lack of consultation and investigation of other sites that had taken place prior to submitting this application and hoped that Mr Taylor would feedback their comments.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation.