Agenda item - BH2025/02913 - 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 the president of the St Margarets Residents Association and stated that the flats share the freehold of the building. The speaker noted they could not stop the existing roof developments as they considered the telecoms companies could do anything, however, the new application required planning permission. It was considered that once granted, planning permission would not be required for further development, and more masts could be added under permitted development. The speaker asked that other sites be looked at.

3.    Ward Councillor Fishleigh addressed the committee and asked what other sites there could be in this challenging village location. As site sharing was considered to be a possibility, the committee were asked to defer the application whilst other sites were investigated. The councillor considered the photos used in the officer’s presentation were old and offered to provide newer ones. The councillor understood the resident’s position but felt a resolution was needed and noted that permission for the existing temporary lattice mast in the nearby car park had run out.

4.    The case officer clarified that they had visited the site two weeks ago and the photos were supplied by the applicant, along with substantial information and alternative sites. The objection from the planning team was the harm caused by the proposals. The considerations of the planning inspector from the previous refusal were taken into account.

5.    Chris Stratton addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that this was the only site that works in the valley location. The site was the only location that gave emergency services connectivity. The existing temporary mast in the nearby car park gives 38% of the amount of range that would be offered from St Margaret’s. It was noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports the need for phone masts and the authority needs to comply with policy. The temporary mast obscures views, whereas the proposals would have a minor impact. St Margarets is only locally listed and has existing masts.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Pickett was informed that the proposals have been located in an area that allows resident access to the roof. The White Horses Hotel renovations include the installation of a pitched roof, which prevents use by masts. It would be possible to move the proposals around St Maragaret’s roof space. It was stated that proposals are considered on existing sites first, then on buildings, and then on ground locations. The agent confirmed the existing temporary mast was for 18 months only and this timescale has expired.

7.    Councillor Hill was informed by the agent that the ward councillors had been consulted, and a drop-in session had been held. Some residents had supported the proposals and other had not. The agent was not able to confirm if that if planning permission was granted there would be more masts in the future, however, they speculated that in the future 6G would require less masts as existing masts could be used. It was noted that permitted development only allowed 3 masts per roofscape. It was further stated that the applicant cared about the community hence applying for planning permission rather than erecting masts under permitted development rights, however, phone coverage must be provided.

8.    The case officer considered they would need to see any proposals before they could state if they were permitted development or not.

9.    Councillor Parrott was informed that the National Health Service (NHS) was moving away from Airwave network and onto Emergency Services Network (ESN). It noted that there was no evidence of the impact on emergency services. The agent considered networks were getting worse, as they power down and up when needed. The case officer noted while the location may be ideal from a communications perspective, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) had to consider impact and harm. The LPA considered that other sites should be looked at. It was noted that there had been no request for pre-application advice. The agent confirmed that they were trying to solve existing network issues in the area and future proof.

10. Councillor Guilmant was informed by the agent that a mapping exercise had been undertaken with St Margarets at the centre. The temporary mast in the nearby car park would give 38% of the coverage that could be achieved from St Margarets. If the temporary mast were increased to 30m, that would give 88% coverage of what the proposals could achieve. It was noted that the only other site looked at was the nearby car park where the temporary mast is located.

11. Councillor Earthey was informed by the LPA that the proposals were considered to cause harm to the heritage assets of the conservation area and locally listed building. The proposals are considered to increase the harm with reference to the previously refused scheme. The shroud proposed to obscure the lower mast is not considered to be good. The case officer stated the proposals were being refused regarding the impact. Other sites, such as ground based locations, could have been looked at.

12. The agent considered that the lower mast masking by the proposed shroud was preferable to a much larger shroud covering the whole mast.

13. Councillor Robinson was informed by the agent that networks give the emergency services ‘slices’ of coverage.

14. Councillor Cattell was informed that the previous application was refused on impact grounds and these proposals were considered to increase the harm.

15. Councillor Thomson was informed that the shroud would be constructed of fibreglass and painted to be in keeping with the style of the existing Art Deco building. The agent confirmed that the Heritage reports had taken longer than expected, and they did ask to meet with planning officers. The case officer stated that a pre-application meeting would have been preferred, along with more details.

16. Councillor Theobald was informed that St Margarets was a locally listed building.

Debate

17. Councillor Earthey considered that other sites were problematic and the village was a black spot for emergency services. The main road was heavily used, as was the access to the beach, where marine services access the sea. The councillor considered that the application should be sent back to the agent, and a meeting held to talk through the issues and locations.

18. Councillor Hill considered that there was clear harm to the conservation area, however, it was a black spot and that could mean harm to life. Increasing the temporary mast to 30m was not a good idea. There was no perfect solution. The councillor on balance supported the application, even though it was a shame there was not pre-application advice requested.

19. Councillor Theobald remembered the previous refusal in 2024. They noted the locally listed building, which was highly visible. Other masts being added was also a threat. The building was not considered the right one and the councillor supported the case officer’s recommendation to refuse.

20. Councillor Parrott stated they understood the issues and that telecoms were essential and poor networks were a major issue. Emergency services were a real concern with regard to network coverage. On balance the councillor would support the application.

21. Councillor Robinson considered the issues to be complicated, knowing how the previous application was refused. The councillor considered facts were missing, which the applicant should have supplied. The councillor supported the officer recommendation to refuse.

22. Councillor Sheard considered emergency services coverage to be very important and other locations should have been looked at. The councillor considered the application should be returned to the agent for more information to be supplied.

23. Councillor Thomson was conflicted as it appeared that lives might be at risk, however, the impact on the locally listed building was important. A pre-application meeting would have been best, and the councillor did not want to defer. The councillor supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse.

24. Councillor Cattell considered the issues around the emergency services to be a big issue, however, there was no paperwork to support this.

Vote

25. A vote was held, and by 7 to 3 the committee agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse.

26. 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 set out in the report.