Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda.  He provided members with several updates including a letter of support that had been withdrawn by the author who now objected to the application; a letter of support from a resident of Sandford Orcas who hoped the mast would improve the mobile signal; a letter from the chairman of the Sherborne and District Society Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE asking why the advice of the Landscape Architect and the Conservation Officer had been ignored; and a letter from Corton Denham PC that had been sent to all members of AEC regarding comments made in the agenda report by the Planning Officer.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer indicated the location of the proposed telecommunications mast, a map showing the area of coverage, the vicinity of the church and photos including photo montages.  He then read out the arguments for and against the application and referred to the discounted sites, he reiterated that this application would be the only opportunity to improve mobile reception in the area, if the application was refused the applicant had said that they that would not put in an appeal against the decision.  The officer confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application as detailed in the agenda report.

Mr J Martin and Mr N Young of Corton Denham PC both spoke in objection to the application they considered the application would have a significant effect on the countryside, the beautiful scene was often used by media magazines to depict the English countryside and that would be spoilt it could in turn affect tourism in the area. Although not opposed to new technology this was considered to be the wrong application in the wrong place.

Ms H Clarke, Mrs G Wilks, Mrs J Jackson, Dr R Odgers, Mr D Morgan, Mr S Sparrow, and Mrs L Elson all spoke in objection to the application.

Mr W Osborne of the Harlequin Group spoke in support of the application and urged members to approve the application as this would be the only chance to improve the mobile signal within the area.

Ward Member Cllr Tim Inglefield thanked the officer for his report but disagreed with the recommendation, he knew the area well and considered that the visual amenity particularly from the South would be effected. A huge majority were against the application as well as the Landscape and Conservation Officers, Cllr Inglefield proposed that the application be refused.

Ward Member Cllr William Wallace agreed with Cllr Inglefield and felt this was a good example of localism and seconded the proposal to refuse the application.

During discussion members expressed their support to refuse the application. It was felt that the way that technology was going the mast would be redundant in just a few years’ time, although the future generation needed to be considered this proposal was in the wrong location and would have an impact on the setting of the listed church as well as harm to the landscape character and visual amenity; the applicant could also have consulted better with the community.

On being put to the vote to refuse the application because the benefits in terms of improved communications arising from the proposed telecommunications mast would be outweighed by the harm to the landscape character and visual amenity and setting of heritage assets, including the grade II listed church the motion was carried unanimously in favour of refusing the application.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/03661/FUL be refused as the benefits in terms of improved communications arising from the proposed telecommunications mast would be outweighed by the harm to landscape character and visual amenity and setting of heritage assets, including the grade II listed church. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies ST5, ST6, EH5, EH1, EC3, EU8 of the South Somerset Local Plan, the Emerging Local Plan Policies SS2 and EQ2, and the policies contained within Chapters 11 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically paragraph 128.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)