Skip to content

Agenda item

Redwood Court, 85 Sunnyside London, N19 3SN

Minutes:

Proposed rooftop telecommunications upgrade involving; the replacement of existing antennas, dish and cabinet with 6 no. new antennas, 3 no. dishes and 2 replacement equipment cabinets to facilitate 5G coverage.

 

(Planning application number: P2019/1652/FUL (Council Owned Building))

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

  • The Planning Officer informed the meeting that although the site is situated within the Whitehall Park Conservation Area, there are no statutory or locally listed buildings in the vicinity of the site nor is Redwood Court listed, so there is no impact on heritage assets.

  • Members were reminded that issues for consideration with the proposal include the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, public benefits, impact on the amenities of surrounding occupiers and public health implications.

  • With regards to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the conservation area, the Planning Officer highlighted  concerns of the Design and Conservation Team with regards to telecommunications equipment being installed on roof tops. The Team  recognised that considering the host building is not an undesignated heritage asset and is considerably higher than its neighbours it will only have a neutral impact.

  • Members were reminded that installations of any telecommunications is governed by national and international legislation and guidance which requires the need to comply with limitations imposed by the International Commission of Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

  • A Member of the public expressed concerns about health risks in connection with 5G masts, especially to children, and that residents had not been informed of the proposals before commencement. A resident requested for public discussion of the dangers of 5G with residents before decisions are taken to erect them on tenants properties prior to applications being approved.

  • A neighbouring resident stated that she had concerns about 5G and the effects of radiation and believed that 4G is perfectly adequate for mobile phone use. In addition, she noted that there is evidence of associated dangers with prolonged use of 5G mast and its technology.

  • The applicant stated that all telecommunication equipment and its  installation operates to international standards and must be in compliance with ICNIRP guidelines. The applicant indicated that the equipment is low sound[k1]  generating, designed to be in full compliance with guidelines and sufficiently separated from nearby residential accommodation to cause any disturbance.

  • In response to public health concerns raised by objectors, the Planning Officer informed the meeting that colleagues in Public Health had considered the proposal and provided guidance that risks to public health is low and that the deployment of 5G does not pose a threat to the health and safety of residents (the public Health commentary on 5G, which was included with the papers was noted by the Committee). In addition members were advised that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the proposed antennas would comply with ICNIRP Guidelines, and that the proposed installation has the appropriate certification.

  • In response to consultation concerns, the Planning Officer stated that 179 letters of consultation had been sent to residents in the block and surrounding area, and no responses were received.  The applicant on the other hand stated that although he did not have precise details of the consultation carried out but was sure the company’s consultation plan which included contacting the Ward Councillors would have been carried out in addition to the Council letters of consultation.

  • A Member stated that whilst recognising that the application met certification standards telecom companies had to recognise the need to be in discussion with the public to allay their fears given the concern over 5G, that for future applications the applicant’s consultation process needs to be more robust. The applicant stated that for future applications they would undertake to contact residents affected in addition to Ward Councillors.

  • In response to a suggestion for applicants to facilitate public meetings  prior to applications being put forward to planning committee so as to allay public safety concerns, the Planning Officer highlighted Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy which states that Local authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only and not question the need for an electronic communication system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.

  • It was noted that in the report there was evidence from the Director of Public Health on the scientific advice on 5G, and that in view of this and the ICNIRP certificate the Committee were not in a position to reject or ignore such advice.

  • A view was expressed that 5G masts seemed to be erected in a haphazard manner across the borough, mainly on high rise Council blocks, and that there needed to be a more co-ordinated approach by providers to the erection of masts.

  • Councillor Clarke proposed an amendment to the recommendation for the application to be deferred for further consultation with residents which was seconded by Councillor Mackmurdie. Motion to defer was put to vote, which was lost by 5 votes to 2.

 

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Kay.

 

 

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report. 

 


 [k1]Low ‘radiation’ generating – surely?

Supporting documents: