Agenda item - BH2024/01723 - St Margarets, High Street, Rottingdean, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Bill Ainscow addressed the committee as an objecting resident and member of the tenant’s association, supported the case officer’s recommendation. It was noted that the application site was a fine example of Art Deco architecture, and the state of the original building was important. A second aerial on top of the building would not be good. The roof of the block of flats as an amenity space for residents and any loss would not be acceptable. It was considered that radiation levels will be increased by the application. It was a concern that if planning permission were granted then the telecom company could increase the size of the aerial at any time. The resident considered other locations were available.

3.    Ward Councillor Fishleigh addressed the committee and stated that they considered there was a telecom ‘merry-go-round’ in Rottingdean. It was noted that a temporary mast had been erected and allowed until 2025. The mast would then be removed leaving residents struggling for connection. The South Downs National Park and a locally listed building will be affected by the application. Should the aerial be refused, then a new location should be found by consultation with the community and ward councillors. 

4.    Simon Bucknell addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that providing coverage was a duty and St Margarets was the obvious choice. The location needs to be effective as ‘EE’ have taken over as emergency services provider and no service will affect blue light services. Under the code of practice, the location is suitable as it has an existing aerial and is an existing building. Free standing masts are against policy. The appearance of the aerial will be less than shown in the case officer presentation and will not be visible from the front façade of the building. There will be no lasting impact on the building. It was also noted that access to the roof space is limited anyway.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.    Councillor Shanks was informed that for a radius of 27 - 30m around the existing aerial no access was allowed unless it was turned off. The resident stated that the roof terrace had been used since 1938, however, at this time the railings were not safe and were awaiting repair. Once repaired there was an intention to return to using the roof terrace.

6.    Councillor Robinson was informed by the agent that other sites had been looked at and the Tesco store had been considered, however, this would require a 10m base mast as the building was low down in the topography of the village.

7.    Councillor Earthey was informed that the White Horses pub was no longer a suitable location as the roof was not capable of supporting a mast. The agent confirmed that access to the roof terrace was restricted by the existing antennae.

8.    Councillor Thomson was informed by the agent that clearance above ground level was required for a mast, and this was not achievable on the Tesco store site. The car park used by the temporary mast was not suitable either. The best site was St Margarets as it was the highest.

9.    Councillor Galvin was informed that the leaseholders would be aware of the application. It was noted that the correct certificates were issued.

10. Councillor Robinson was informed that a 10m high mast on top of the Tesco store would be too heavy. St Margarets is the prime location. The temporary car park location is not suitable as the loss of parking spaces and visual impact were not acceptable.

11. Councillor Loughran was informed that no important views were affected. St Margarets is locally listed. The effect on the South Downs National Park was considered to be neutral. The only impact was on the building itself. Some weight was given to national networks; however, other locations need to be explored. It was noted that the aerial had no screening, and no alternatives have been offered.

12. Councillor Nann was informed that the application would be re-assed if refused and new locations submitted.

13. Councillor Sheard was informed by the agent that ground clearance was needed, and the topographic slopes of the village affected the choice of locations. The car park site would need raising.

Debate

14. Councillor Theobald considered the building to be lovely and would look ugly if the application were allowed, and result in a loss of amenity for residents. Alternative sites need to be found.

15. Councillor Earthey stated they supported the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission. It was considered that other sites had not been explored. The temporary mast needs to be removed, and a new location agreed by all parties.

16. Councillor Shanks was minded to accept the application as they considered telecoms to be vital and Rottingdean should have good access. The aerial will not be seen from local area and the heritage assets will not be affected. The councillor was against the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

17. Councillor Sheard stated they understood the residents view and higher locations needed to be found.

18. Councillor Robinson supported the officer recommendation to refuse the application and considered alternative locations needed to be looked at.

19. Councillor Thomson supported the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

20. Councillor Loughran supported the officer recommendation to refuse the application and considered alternative sites needed to be found.

Vote

21. A vote was taken, and by 8 to 2 the committee agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.

22. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons given in the report.