Council planners inconsistent on 5G decisions

The recent trio of planning applications for 5G telecommunications masts nearly 60 feet (18m) high have been decided by Hastings Borough Council (HBC). Warrior Square (‘528’) was nixed because it’s in a Conservation Area. Little Ridge Avenue (‘526’), just south of the Conquest, was refused because of the damage to visual amenity. The one beside the Oval (HS/TL/22/00527) was approved however. Bernard McGinley reports.

In each case, the reports and delegated decisions were published simultaneously, in apparent breach of the openness and transparency the HBC constitution straightfacedly proclaims. Citations and misquotations of obsolete guidance rendered the applications inaccurate and inapplicable — and thus invalid.  

The last of the trio, the 5G pole at the Oval, like the others, involved three ‘additional ancillary equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works’.  The site is opposite the turning for Summerfields carpark, left of the top of Falaise Road. Unfortunately (as was pointed out), there are no trees on that side of Bohemia Road to screen the mast from either the road or the Oval.

Another case

The Little Ridge Avenue case (‘526’) was refused on these grounds:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its siting and appearance, is considered to result in an incongruous form of development which would not harmonise with the verdant residential characteristics of the streetscene, and which would fail to sympathetically integrate with its surroundings, resulting in an overly dominant feature in the local environment, such that the proposal would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Hastings Local Plan – Development Management Plan (2015) and Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. It is not considered that any proposed benefits from the development outweigh the identified harm in such a manner that the identified harm could not be mitigated by siting the development elsewhere, given that the reasons and justification for siting are not considered sufficient. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Hastings Local Plan – Development Management Plan (2015) and Paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  

Failing to integrate sympathetically with surroundings, and an overly dominant feature locally such that the proposal would damage the visual amenities of the surrounding area both apply in spades to the Oval case, where reasons and justification are scant. The Council is being incoherent, again.  

Airy references to 

the constraints of erecting this equipment in more densely built-up and/or protected areas of the town

are not further explained. Are high buildings suitable or not?

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para 115 stipulates:

. . . Where new sites are required (such as for new 5G networks, or for connected transport and smart city applications), equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.

Neither design nor camouflage were broached in the report or the decision letter.  Nor was there a statement that camouflage or a different design was unnecessary.

Some stated formal reasons for objection were not mentioned in the report. The many objections were unhelpfully, baldly summarised.  

Justification what justification?

The casefile document labelled ‘5G SITE SPECIFIC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AND PLANNING JUSTIFICATION’ is awash with self-invalidation and irrelevance. 

The considerations for excluding sites (p9) are clearly formulaic and hasty:

Site	Discounted Reason	Added comment
D1 — Redmayne Drive	Nominal location very residential with insufficient pavements and visibility splay rest of the search area is the same.	What does ‘Nominal’ mean?  Redmayne Drive’s pavements are as sufficient as anywhere else in the area.
D2 — Clifton Court	This option has been discounted due to unsuitable pavements and visibility splay issues	Unsuitable how?  And what were the issues?
D3 — Cornwallis Gardens	This option has been discounted due to unsuitable pavements or grass verges and the location is also in a residential area.	Vague and identical to D6.  Surely Cornwallis Gardens  (etc.) were known to be residential before being shortlisted?
D4 — Holmebury House	This option has been discounted due to unsuitable pavements or grass verge and visibility splay issues.	Identical to D5. Like D3, this is again noticeably vague.
D5 —Westwood House	This option has been discounted due to unsuitable pavements or grass verge and visibility splay issues.	Identical to D4.
D6 — Ellis Close	This option has been discounted due to unsuitable pavements or grass verges and the location is also in a residential area.	Vague and identical to D3.

As cut-and-paste this is inept.

The application mentions

a reduced visual impact upon an area of adopted highway identified

without actually saying how reduced, or identifying what/where that area is. Nearby locations were apparently not considered, such as Holmesdale Court or the carpark of the court buildings in Bohemia, or a corner of the nearby police station or fire station, or Hastings Museum. Methodologically (and cumulatively), this is arbitrary.

Continuum consultants’ report

The delegated report states of the edge-of-the-Oval site:

Bohemia Road in this location is relatively open and uncluttered.

Not any more it won’t be.

The government’s Telecoms Code (introduced under the Digital Economy Act 2017) reduced local authorities’ scope of refusal regarding the siting of telecoms equipment, but it did not remove it. The

refusal of the other two 5G cases shows this. There were planning reasons to refuse the Oval mast too, and the assertion that it

will assimilate well into the immediate street
scene and not be detrimental

is false.

Probably this dubious | specious decision will  make it easier to decide to develop White Rock Gardens (Minute 227, the Bohemia leisure and cultural facilities options appraisal study).  A consultants’ report (commissioned by HBC Cabinet in January 2020) is nearly three years overdue.  

Also in: Home Ground

« Alarm bells ring at Selep over road funding arrangements
Two projects help boost town’s affordable housing supply »