List all policies in this Topic

TE1  Criteria for Telecommunications Apparatus  Policy

Planning applications for telecommunications apparatus will be approved, subject to the following criteria:

(i) where the impact of the proposal upon amenity is minimal, through siting and external appearance;

(ii) where the proposal is for a free-standing mast, the applicant demonstrating that the apparatus cannot be located on an existing building or that an existing mast cannot be shared; and

(iii) where the proposal is for a new building, the applicant demonstrating that an existing building cannot be shared.

In assessing the suitability of proposals, the Local Planning Authority recognises that there are technical considerations that often limit the choice of sites and the type of apparatus used to achieve the optimum signal coverage. This will be taken into account in the determination of planning applications for telecommunications apparatus.

Reasoned justification :

22.4 With the opening up of the telecommunications industry since the early 1980's and the increasing range of new apparatus, proposals for new telecommunications masts and antennae have sometimes come into conflict with environmental objectives. The operational requirements of the telecommunications industry often limit the siting of apparatus and make it essential to use high buildings and tall masts.

22.5 Policy TE1 provides criteria for proposals which require planning permission. In determining applications for telecommunications apparatus, such as masts and base stations as defined in Part 24 Class A3 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, the Local Planning Authority will take account of the need to minimise intrusion, perhaps by substituting one large mast for several smaller ones. However, such a pattern of distribution should not be detrimental to the amenity of the area or visually damaging to a building to which such a mast may be attached.

22.6 In addition, conditions in several code operator licences require applicants to explore the possibility of sharing an existing site, which may be both more economical and less intrusive than an excess of new apparatus. However, this should not be at the expense of visual amenity at the existing site