25-metre phone mast with six antennas plan refused despite warning 'quality of the coverage will continue to get worse in Armagh'
A planning application for the proposed removal of the existing rooftop telecommunications equipment on a BT exchange site, adjacent to the PSNI station on the Newry Road, Armagh, to be replaced by a 25-metre lattice tower, has been refused.
The tower would have included six antennas and associated works, however it was deemed to be visually too obtrusive in what is just outside a designated Conservation Area.
The planning application was lodged by Les Ross Planning, Magherafelt, on behalf of Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd.
The matter was discussed at length at an ABC Planning & Regulatory Services meeting held on July 2, with principal planning officer, Roisin Hamill stating: “This application has been recommended for refusal.
“The site currently accommodates an existing equipment cabinet on a concrete base, with a portion of the existing BT exchange building accommodating two sets of panel antennas on support poles at either corner of the roof.
“Officers have considered views of the site, including along Scotch Street. From this vantage point, the PSNI station is very visible, as is the fencing surrounding the station, the existing PSNI mast and existing street lighting.
“Officers consider that from this view, there is visual clutter which detracts from the street scene, and the proposed lattice tower, which would be very starkly visible, would compound this view, resulting in unacceptable damage to the visual amenity of the area.
Sensitive Location
“Furthermore, the application is located close to the Armagh Conservation Area, which officers consider to be an environmentally sensitive location.
“When viewed coming out of the Conservation Area from Barrack Street, the lattice tower equipment will be highly visible because of the height of the proposed column.
“It would represent a stark structure against the skyline, and would be viewed in conjunction with the existing PSNI mast, which officers acknowledge does already have an unacceptable impact on the street scene and views out of the Conservation Area.
“The proposal would serve to compound this negative impact on the street scene. Similarly, when viewed travelling along Scotch Street towards Friary Road, the PSNI station is visible, as is the fencing surrounding the police station, the existing PSNI mast and existing street lighting.
“There is existing visual clutter which detracts from the street scene, and the proposed tower would compound this view, resulting in unacceptable damage to this important view out of the Conservation Area.
“In terms of impacts on health, which has been raised by a number of third parties, information has been submitted and includes the appropriate ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) declaration.
“Regional guidance advises that where applications for the development of telecommunication equipment are accompanied by this declaration, it should not be necessary for the planning authority to consider health concerns any further.”
Les Ross, from Les Ross Planning Ltd, stated in the course of his presentation, and in subsequent exchanges with councillors: “It’s particularly difficult to provide good coverage in Armagh, and that’s because of the slopes and the hills in and around the city which block the signal.
Base Station
“And then whenever you add the buildings and the trees to that landscape, there’s lots of obstacles and that’s very problematic for providing coverage. There’s a base station at the site. It covers the south and west of the urban area, including the city centre, but it’s not working properly because it’s too low.
“Demand is increasing at an incredible rate, and the only way to provide a reasonable degree of coverage is to completely upgrade this site. Otherwise, the quality of the coverage will continue to get worse in Armagh.
“A 25-metre mast is required to clear the trees and the buildings, to get the signal out over a reasonable area of the urban part of Armagh. This site is behind the police station. There’s already a 40-metre mast at the police station. Our mast is much lower than that and it’s much less impactful.
“It’s a perfect site. None of the consultees have any problems with the proposal. Historic Environment Division has not objected, and they’re the expert statutory consultee. So it’s surprising that this recommendation [to refuse planning permission] is contrary to the opinion of those experts.
“We totally acknowledge the proposed mast will be visible, but that’s because it needs to be. If it was invisible, it wouldn’t work. Masts need to be above all that clutter.
“And the reality is, this mast will be a fairly minor feature compared to the police mast and all the stuff that’s around the police building. If you refuse this application, coverage in the southern and western parts of the city is just going to get worse and worse.
“We need higher masts these days for the 4G and 5G signal, because the old 3G signal travelled further than these newer technologies.
“The beam just doesn’t get out as far, so you have to get up higher to get the coverage out, and we are just struggling because we have to get these up in the air and visible.
“I don’t know where we’re going to go if we can’t use this site. [If we can’t use it] the technical guys are telling me that we’re going to need three smaller sites around Armagh, and possibly one in the Conservation Area. I honestly do not know how we will achieve that.”
During the phone mast discussion, councillors were torn on whether to approve or refuse it.
Cllr Peter Lavery (Alliance, Lurgan DEA) said: “If we take a decision to refuse this application, will that not have a really negative impact on businesses and the people who live in the south and west of the city?
“And if we accept the officers’ recommendation [to refuse the planning application], Armagh is a very historic city, so it’s important that the historic buildings [are not] impacted.
“Les was talking about three smaller masts within the Conservation Area [as being] the only other solution, so that’s probably worse. What’s the least worst scenario here? I don’t know what the answer is.”
Cllr Ian Wilson (DUP, Banbridge DEA) commented “It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. We’re making a decision on one individual mast, and if we refuse that we’re going to possibly end up having three separate masts.
“So it’s a bit of a quandary. We all demand better internet speeds. Technology moves on at a pace and we all demand to have the proper technology and the infrastructure to support that.”
Cllr John Óg O’Kane (SF, Armagh DEA) said: “If there was another site, I would definitely be looking for a different site, because the Townscape Heritage funding is just finishing up. Millions have been spent on it.”
Reminding members that no alternative proposal was on the cards, Committee chair, Cllr Kevin Savage (SF, Banbridge DEA) said: “What’s before us is what we will be deciding on.”
Cllr Paul Duffy (SF, Portadown DEA) recommended: “I propose that we refuse the mast and accept the officers’ recommendation to refuse it, and would ask Les to go back and look at other areas, and possibly bring forward somewhere else in the future.”
After Cllr Lavery queried the possibility of having the matter deferred, legal advice was sought. When the meeting resumed, he tabled the following: “I would like to propose a deferral on this item for further information on what the impact would be in terms of signal quality, if we do not approve this application versus we approve this application.”
Cllr Julie Flaherty (UUP, Portadown DEA) said: “I would like to second Cllr Lavery’s proposal. I don’t feel that I am content with the technical information that I have.”
Committee vice-chair, Cllr Mary O’Dowd (SF, Lurgan DEA) seconded her party colleague’s proposal to turn down the planning application.
Alderman Gareth Wilson (DUP, Cusher DEA) stated: “When I vote it will not be against innovation and signal improvement. it’ll be the pursuit of a more visually attractive solution.”
Cllr Lavery’s proposal, seeking a deferral so that more technical information could be obtained, was defeated, with three councillors voting in favour of it, and eight against.
Cllr Duffy’s proposal, recommending refusal, was carried, with nine councillors in favour, and two abstentions.
Francois Vincent, Local Democracy Reporter