BOROUGH OF POOLE

PLANNING COMMITTEE

16th APRIL 2009

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION ON

LAND OPPOSITE 26 ELGIN ROAD, POOLE

PART OF THE PUBLISHED FORWARD PLAN NO

STATUS

  1. PURPOSE

1.1At the Planning Committee Meeting held on 26 March 2009, Members deferred the Application to enable further discussions between the Local Planning Authority and the Applicant to consider alternative locations for the mast and cabinet or to pursue mast-sharing opportunities in the area.

  1. DECISIONS REQUIRED

2.1To note the action and decision taken under the scheme of delegation.

  1. BACKGROUND/INFORMATION

3.1Refer to Appendix 1 for a copy of the case officers report.

3.2The application sought ‘Prior Approval’ for the installation of a 15 metre high telecommunications column clad in GRP shrouding to resemble a telegraph pole, 1no. equipment cabinet and ancillary development.

3.3Under the Act, a Local Planning Authority must determine Prior Approval applications within 56 days from receipt of the application. If no decision is made and the applicant has a copy of the application’s decision notice, then on the 57th day the proposed works have a deemed consent, irrespective of the Council’s objection.

3.4The committee resolution in March did not leave sufficient time to consider alternative sites and report back to April’s planning committee or an interim planning committee and the application would miss its target date.

3.5As such, with the agreement of the Head of Legal Services, Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee, the application was refused under the scheme of delegation on 3rd April 2009. Its refusal protects the Council’s position given that the Planning Committee were not satisfied that all alternative sites had been considered as part of their site selection process.

3.6The reason for refusal was:

The applicants have notdemonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that they have considered all alternative sites or mast sharing opportunities within the localitywith a view to minimising their visual intrusion andimpact on the character of the street. As such the proposed installation is contrary to BE10 and PCS23 of theCore Strategy (as amended by the Binding Report on the Examination) adopted on 19th February 2009.

  1. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1The applicant has the right to appeal against the decision to the Department of Communities and Local Government. At an appeal, the applicant (and Local Planning Authority) has the opportunity to make an application for award of costs if the other party has acted unreasonably.

  1. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1Notwithstanding the decision of the Planning Committee of 26th March 2009, the application has been determined without further reference to the Planning Committee.

5.2Determination of prior approval applications nevertheless fall within the scheme of delegation and in this instance, with the agreement of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee, the decision made reflected the intentions of the Planning Committee. Whilst the circumstances are somewhat unusual, the process is defendable.

6.RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

6.1None

7.EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

7.1None

8.CONCLUSIONS

8.1The determination of the Prior Approval application protects the Council’s position, namely preventing the application receiving deemed planning permission by reason of the 56 day target.

8.2Negotiations with the applicant will continue with a view of identifying possible alternative locations from the proposed mast.

STEPHEN THORNE

HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION SERVICES

Report Author

Contact officer: Darryl Howells 01202 6333477

Background Papers: Previous Committee Report 26 March 2009 and plans

1