N-180-00298-11, item 19. PDF 125 KB - East Lindsey District Council

[08] Full Planning Permission
N/180/00298/ 11
APPLICANT: Mr. N. Totterdell,
VALID: 22/02/2011 AGENT:
PROPOSAL: Planning Permission - Erection of 2.no Short Wave Amateur
Radio Masts and Aerials, and 4 no. 10 metre vertical poles in
accordance with amended plans received by the Local Planning
Authority from the applicant on 5th May 2011 and 24th May
2011.
LOCATION: THE WHITE HOUSE, BRICKYARD LANE, THEDDLETHORPE,
LINCOLNSHIRE, LN12 1NR
1.0 REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
1.1 The application has been called to Planning Committee by Councillor Mrs.
S. Harrison for the following reasons:
1. The potential impact on the adjacent national Nature Reserve Site
of Scientific Interest which is an important area for migrating
birds;
2. Impact on the street scene in an area of the village where
dwellings are very closely grouped around a single track access
to the National Nature Reserve;
3. Visual impact in a flat rural area which is part of the coastal
grazing marsh.
2.0 THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
2.1 The site lies on the eastern edge of the settlement of Theddlethorpe.
The applicants dwelling is located in the centre of the site with a 'front'
garden to the south of the dwelling and a 'rear' garden to the north. The
dwelling is a two storey dwelling of traditional appearance with a three
bay frontage. The site lies on the western side of Brickyard Lane. The
dwelling and the north of the site lies within the Coastal Conservation
Area. To the north east of the site lies the Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe
Dunes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which includes a National
Nature Reserve. The site lies some 570m from the boundary with the
SSSI.
2.2 There are mature trees and hedging along all boundaries of the site. To
the immediate south of the site is a bungalow and there are bungalows
on the opposite side of Brickyard Lane to the east. The area is
characterised by bungalows set in individual plots. To the north of the
site are fields. Brickyard Lane leads to a small number of dwellings and
the car park for the Dunes and beach.

2.3 The edge of settlement area is generally rural in character with fairly
spacious plots and trees lining the road and garden edges.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 The proposal is for the erection of 2.no Short Wave Amateur Radio Masts
and Aerials, and 4 no. 10 metre vertical poles.
3.2 The above consists of one 20 metre vertical pole in the southern garden
of the property. This pole is 80mm at the base, gradually tapering to
39mm at the top. This pole is free standing and is erected between two
short steel channels that must be set in a small concrete block. The pole
pivots near the bottom so can be fully raised and lowered from ground
level with a winch which is set between the two channels. The applicant
has advised that this pole is not required for every competition and so
therefore is likely to be erected infrequently.
3.3 It is proposed to erect one 24 metre mast in the northern edge of the
northern garden of the property which is a lattice tower with aerials on
the top. This mast can be lowered to a mid position of 7.5 metres in
height when not in use and can be fully lowered to a folded position.
When the mast is in this position it is 3.5 metres in height.
3.4 The proposal also includes the erection of four 10 metres vertical poles in
the northern garden which are arranged in a square. These poles are
like fibreglass fishing rods (roach poles) with a very narrow profile.
These poles measure 49mm diameter at the base and taper to 4mm in
diameter at the top. The applicant has confirmed that these will not be
left erected when not in use.
3.5 The masts are for the use of the applicant for his hobby in amateur radio
to use during radio competitions. The applicant has confirmed that a
reasonable condition would require the masts to be up for no longer than
48 days in a year. Many competitions are only 24 hours in duration or
less. Some events are restricted to certain frequency bands and
therefore only require one aerial for the duration of the event. The
majority of these competitions are held at weekends.
4.0 CONSULTATION
4.1 Set out below are the consultation responses that have been received on
this application. These responses may be summarised and full copies are
available for inspection separately. Some of the comments made may
not constitute material planning considerations.
Publicity
4.2 The application has been advertised by means of a site notice being
displayed at the site and adjoining neighbours being notified.

Consultees
4.3 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - The proposed development will not be
detrimental to highway safety or traffic capacity.
4.4 PARISH COUNCIL - Object - visual impact - street scene and proximity to
nature reserve (SSSI).
4.5 LINCOLNSHIRE TRUST FOR NATURE CONSERVATION - Thank you for
consulting the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust on this application which is
within one of the grazing marsh project target areas and is close to
Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes Site of Special Scientific Interest and
National Nature Reserve. We would not expect the application to have
an adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of the SSSI/NNR;
however, we would recommend that the views of Natural England are
sought prior to determination of the application.
We note that guy ropes will be used to stabilise the masts when they are
erected for use. There is potential for birds to strike the guy ropes which
could put the development at conflict with the aspirations of the grazing
marsh project which aims to increase the numbers of birds in the area by
restoration of grazing marsh. We would therefore strongly recommend
that reflective markers are put on the guys so that birds would be better
able to see and avoid them.
4.6 NATURAL ENGLAND - Not received.
Neighbours
4.7 In total 223 representations have been received to the application. To
date, these can be separated as follows:
In favour: 98
Against: 115
Comments: 9
Petitions against: 1
The letters of support are from a range of locations but can be
summarised as follows
Brickyard Lane, Theddlethorpe: 7
Saltfleet Road, Theddlethorpe: 7
Rotten Row, Theddlethorpe: 1
Sea Lane, Theddlethorpe: 1
Kent Avenue, Theddlethorpe: 2
Others: 80

These letters of support cover the following issues:
• Do not think the aerials will be very noticeable because the site is
surrounded by trees;
• Amateur radio is in use during the present emergency in Japan;
• Radio amateurs have just had the opportunity to show their value
in the recent Operation Watermark;
• It is useful to have radio amateurs who live along the UK
coastline;
• There are many aerials and masts en route (e.g. farms, mobile
phones, CB and amateur radio aerials) between Mablethorpe and
Grimsby. They are now perceived by community as part of the
environment, e.g. gas terminal at Theddlethorpe;
• Applicant is entitled to pursue his hobby;
• Applicant is fully qualified and authorised by OFCOM;
• The property is surrounded by tall trees which screen the masts
and antennas from view, so no visible impact is made on the
surrounding area;
• Amateur radio has significant educational benefits;
• Application could be made personal to applicant;
• Installation will have little effect upon the surrounding properties;
• Amateur radio enables contact with other radio enthusiasts
around the world;
• The slender nature of the antenna construction minimises the
visual impact and they are totally confined within the property
boundary. There are many miles of power transmission,
telegraph poles and their lines traverse the highways and fields.
Following installation of such amateur radio antennas, any initial
minimal visual impact would quickly subside into the background;
• The transmitters will not have any effect on nearby electronic
apparatus, nor on health. They make no noise;
• The use of retractable masts further reduce any perceived
impact;
• The applicant is a well-known and respected Radio Amateur;
• Britain has less active Radio Amateurs, partly because most of
those licensed live in urban locations with insufficient space to
erect efficient antennas. I therefore strongly support anyone
trying to redress this balance;
• Can confirm the accuracy of the background and technical
information provided;
• Radio amateurs use low powers in their transmissions to other
radio amateurs and need arials to be as high as possible to
communicate with fellow amateurs around the world;
• Similar installations have been found to have absolutely no effect
on house prices or sellability at all;
• The fact that the application site is the applicant's holiday home
is irrelevant to the application;
• Birds have to negotiate overhead telephone wires, electricity
cables and other hazards every day so cannot see how these
masts can contribute any significant increase in that danger;

• Letter from Estate Agent stating that in this case, the proposal
would not have any detrimental effect on surrounding properties;
The nearest neighbour to support the application is Homelea, Brickyard
Lane:
• The revised application helps reduce the impact of the aerials.
The time limit of 48 days is hardly an imposition on neighbours.
We can see the aerials from our house and they are not offensive
in anyway.
The letters of objection are also from a range of locations but can be
summarised as follows:
Brickyard Lane, Theddlethorpe: 13
Saltfleet Road, Theddlethorpe: 22
Sea Lane, Theddlethorpe: 8
Station Road, Theddlethorpe: 12
Rotten Row, Theddlethorpe: 3
Mablethorpe Road, Theddlethorpe: 3
Others: 54
These letters raise the following points:
• Overbearing visual impact thus harmful to living conditions;
• When aerials are reduced to 6m we can still see them;
• The 48 days mentioned could equate to the masts being up for a
week or weekend at a time because of the difficulty in raising
them;
• Applicant's hobby encroaches onto properties and village around
him;
• Letter from estate agents stating that the siting of the masts for
considerable periods of time will have a detrimental effect on
both the value and saleability of adjoining properties;
• Devaluing of properties;
• Totally in conflict with ELDC Landscape Character Assessment;
• The trees around the property do not hide the masts;
• May set a precedent;
• The main and attractive feature of this area from St Helen's
Church to Brickyard Lane is the trees. Anything that protrudes
above them would be a positive eyesore;
• The applicant's website is encouraging more radio enthusiasts to
the area;
• Brickyard Lane enjoys an uninterrupted skyline from road to
seashore and the radio masts would rise metres above the tree
line;
• Detrimental to appearance of countryside;
• Safety concerns about masts;
• Unsuitable in a residential area.

Letter of objection from The Willows, Brickyard Lane:
• The applicant's remarks that the masts will have minimal visual
impact is totally incorrect;
• The house is the applicant's holiday home;
• The masts tend to be left fully erected or half erected;
• This development would have an industrial appearance,
overbearing visual nature and be totally out of character with it
surroundings;
• It would affect tourism;
• A rook has already been injured by the masts;
• Concerned about how close the masts are to the boundaries,
what if the guy ropes fail;
• Concerned that the applicant will rent his house out to other club
members;
• The tower will be higher than the Angel of the North;
• The trees along our boundary with the site are actually 9.5
metres at the highest and 6.5 metres at the lowest, trees lose
their leaves in winter.
Westwood Lodge, Brickyard Lane:
• Masts detract from the appearance of the lane and the
surrounding vicinity;
• This is supposed to be an area of outstanding beauty on the
doorstep of a national nature reserve with a large amount of
wildlife;
• Safety issue - masts have been seen snapped and lashing in the
wind;
• Health risks;
• Impact on neighbours property valuations and sales.
Imba Matombo, Brickyard Lane:
• The aerials can be seen from the road;
• The White House is overlooked by neighbours;
• We work from home so our telephones are important, we have
had issues with people on line due to radio masts;
• Will lower the chances of a sale on properties;
• Why are three masts required;
• The radio lines around his garden from the masts causes
accidents to large flying birds;
• Health risks;
• We have no huge trees and the condition of the trees on the site
are in thin condition and getting thinner so in future the masts
will be more in view to us, these trees are not in full leaf all year;
• Even when masts are lowered they are in view.

The Hollies, Brickyard Lane:
• I can see the masts from my property;
• Last year one of the guy ropes broke free, what if this happens
when the applicant is not at the property;
• This lane is well kept with tidy gardens and then you get the
White House which is run down with ugly aerials/masts;
• Brickyard Lane is popular with visitors;
• Many species of wildlife around here.
5.0 Ward Member has been made aware previously of this application
as the information was provided on the Weekly List.
6.0 CONSULTATION ON AMENDED PROPOSALS (proposal has been
amended to the erection of two masts and four vertical poles)
Consultee
6.1 PARISH COUNCIL - Despite amendments, our original objections still
apply.
6.2 LINCOLNSHIRE TRUST FOR NATURE CONSERVATION - Our comments
remain the same as those previously submitted.
6.3 LCC as HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - The proposed development will not be
detrimental to highway safety or traffic capacity.
6.4 NATURAL ENGLAND - Not received.
7.0 RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
7.1 None.

8.0 PLANNING POLICY
8.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004
requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with
the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan comprises the East Lindsey Local Plan
Alteration 1999 (Saved Policies) and the East Midlands Regional
Plan 2009. Government’s Planning Policy Statements (PPS’s) and
Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG’s) are material considerations. The
following policies are considered relevant to the consideration of this
application:
East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 (Saved Policies)
Policy A4 - Protection of General Amenities
Policy A5 - Quality and Design of Development
Policy C14 - Coastal Conservation Areas - CCA1 and CCA4
Policy EMP9 - Telecommunications
East Midlands Regional Plan 2009
Policy 26 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region's Natural and Cultural
Heritage
Policy 29 - Priorities for Enhancing the Region's Biodiversity
Planning Policy Statements/Guidance
Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 - Telecommunications
9.0 OFFICER ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL
Main Planning Issues
9.1 The main planning issues in this case are considered to be:
• Visual Impact on Landscape;
• Impact on Coastal Conservation Area, SSSI and Nature
Reserve;
• Impact on Neighbours;
• Effect on Public Health;
• Interference with electrical equipment/reception.
Visual Impact on Landscape
9.2 Policy A5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 is concerned with
the quality and design of development and states that development will
only be permitted where it does not detract from the distinctive character
of the locality.

9.3 Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 – telecommunications (PPG8) gives
guidance on planning for telecommunications development – including
radio masts and towers, antennas of all kinds, radio equipment housing,
public call boxes, cabinets, poles and overhead wires. The general thrust
of the document is clearly aimed at the mobile phone network but there
is overlap with the application type of proposal. The only paragraph
directly related to amateur radio is paragraph 80 that states:
‘Applications for planning permission to install the masts often used by
amateur radio operators, radio taxi firms and other private and
commercial users, usually present few potential planning problems in
terms of size and visual impact over a wide area. Such masts need to be
high enough for technical efficiency and located as far as possible from
other antennas, in order to minimise the possibility of interference.
However, they will not normally be of such a scale as to have a serious
impact on local amenity. Such applicants will generally have less scope
for using alternative sites or for sharing sites, and masts will often need
to be located on the premises’.
9.4 Policy EMP9 of Local Plan Alteration 1999 is applicable and discusses
telecommunications. Similar to PPG8, the policy is primarily aimed at the
mobile phone network but appears to be equally applicable to this
proposal. It states that ‘telecommunications development will be
permitted provided it does not harm the appearance or character of the
area or local amenities generally’.
9.5 The site is located on the edge of Theddlethorpe. There are dwellings to
the south and east and open fields to the north. Further north are the
Theddlethorpe Sand Dunes and the SSSI. This edge of village location is
bordered by mature trees of significant height which form a definitive
edge to the settlement. During the winter months, the house is visible
through the trees from further north along Brickyard Lane.
9.6 The main theme of the objections received to the application centre
around the visual impact of the masts and that the masts will be visible
from outside the site and from nearby neighbours.
9.7 The highest proposed mast is 24 metres high. This is a lattice mast with
aerials on the top. This mast is on a trailer type base so is moveable but
due to its size and bulk, it is unlikely the mast would be moved other
than for maintenance purposes. This mast has guy ropes to keep it in
place. This mast is sited in the northern most part of the garden. The
20 metre vertical pole is the next tallest structure and this is to be sited
in the southern garden, in front of The White House. This pole is tall and
thin and does not require guy ropes. The four 10 metre vertical poles
are arranged in a square to the rear of the house and do not require guy
ropes.

9.8 The applicant has confirmed that he is willing to accept a condition that
allows the masts to be erected for a period of 48 days only. This
condition has been imposed at another site in Saltfleetby by the same
applicant for 11 masts in an open field which was allowed on appeal in
May 2010 (reference N/145/01534/09). By virtue of this condition, the
masts would not be fully erected permanently. The applicant has
confirmed that the 20 metre vertical pole will only be erected
infrequently and the 10 metre vertical poles will not be left erected when
not in use. The 24 metre mast fully retracts to a height of 3.5 and at
this height, the structure would not be visually dominant and would be
screened by the existing trees on the boundaries of the site. However,
the applicant has stated that he would rather be required to lower the
mast to its lowered position of 7.5 metres when not in use for ease of
maintenance for the garden. However, if necessary he would be willing
to accept a condition requiring the masts to be fully retracted to 3.5
metres.
9.9 In terms of assessing the visual impact on the landscape, the proposed
24 metre mast is tall with aerials at the top which has the appearance of
a large T.V aerial. This mast will protrude above the tree line around the
garden and as a result will be visible as part of the wider landscape.
There will be views of the mast from further northwards along Brickyard
Lane and from the Sand Dunes. There is an existing mast in place at the
rear of a property along Saltfleet Road. This is a tall, narrow structure.
The mast will be seen against the backdrop of the trees lining the edge
of the village and as a result will not be seen against a flat landscape
backdrop. With a condition restricting the mast to be erected for only 48
days, it is felt that the mast will not have an adverse impact on the
character of the landscape.
9.10 With regards to the 20 metre vertical pole, this tapers to 36mm at the
top so the visual impact of this pole will diminish significantly with
distance. The Inspector at the Saltfleetby site concluded that the
slimline masts (such as the one proposed here) would be largely lost
against the background of the sky. The proposal is for two high masts so
this small number would not create a cluster of masts and so would not
have the prominence of a large sold object such as a building (the
Inspector came to this conclusion with the application for 11 masts at
Saltfleetby).

Impact on Coastal Conservation Area, SSSI and Nature Reserve
9.11 The northern half of the application site is located within the Coastal
Conservation Area. Policy C14 is concerned with development in these
coastal areas and states that it will not be permitted unless it is essential
in that location. The aim of this policy is to protect the remaining natural
character and interest of the coast. This policy specifically refers to the
Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe dunes and states that it is of great ecological
importance. It goes on to state that where permitted, development shall
not materially harm the amenities, character or ecological balance of the
area because of its siting, scale, form, appearance, materials or noise.
Although the conservation area boundary runs through the centre of the
site, there is no indication on the ground of the difference between the
two areas. The boundary does not follow the boundary of the village
which appears to be an oddity. The character of the site does not have a
coastal character and I would suggest that it would be inappropriate to
judge the application purely on the criteria in Policy C14.
9.12 Policy 26 of the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 is concerned with the
Region's Natural and Cultural Heritage and states that damage to natural
and historic assets should be avoided where and as far as possible.
Policy 29 is concerned with Enhancing the Region's Biodiversity and
refers the Lincolnshire Coastal Grazing Marshes as a Biodiversity
Enhancement Areas.
9.13 The SSSI lies to the north of the application site and a number of the
objections received to the application refer to the impact of the proposal
on the SSSI and birds in the area. The site does not lie within the SSSI
and the nearest corner of the site is located approximately 570 metres
from the nearest part of the SSSI. The 24 metre high mast is tall but
will be up for only 48 days in a year. There is no evidence to suggest
that these structures have an adverse impact on wildlife. The
Lincolnshire Trust for Nature Conservation has been consulted and they
have stated that they would not expect the application to have an
adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of the SSSI/NNR.
They have gone to state that there is potential for birds to strike the guy
ropes which could put the development at conflict with the aspirations of
the grazing marsh project which aims to increase the numbers of birds in
the area by restoration of grazing marsh. They have therefore
suggested that reflective markers are put on the guys so that birds
would be better able to see the ropes. The applicant has agreed to the
imposition of a condition requiring these reflectors to be provided on the
guy ropes. Natural England have been consulted twice on the proposal
but no response has been received.

9.14 The Coastal Grazing Marsh is a multi agency initiative fronted by the
Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust. The Lincolnshire Coastal Grazing Marshes
Partnership Project is being developed - in consultation with
farmers/landowners, the local community and organisations with a
vested interest - to protect, maintain and enhance the key features of
the area and secure their sustainable management into the future. The
overall vision of the LCGM project is to have, once again, a mosaic of
grasslands, rich in wildlife, intersected by a distinctive pattern of
watercourses. This will be a landscape where both arable and livestock
farming thrives and communities have a high quality of life. The project
has the following aims;
• To reverse the decline in biodiversity in the grazing marshes;
• To ensure that any landscape and land-use change enhances and
protects archaeological and historical features and contributes
positively to overall landscape character;
• To encourage the retention and re-establishment of viable
pastoral farms;
• To stimulate local economic activity through the marketing of
locally produced high quality products and services;
• To improve the local environment for the benefit of all through
enhanced access and recreation opportunities;
9.15 As was relayed to the planning committee as part of the application at
Saltfleetby for 11 masts, the grazing marsh initiative has limited weight
in planning considerations. I do not consider this initiative can be used
in refusing the application.
Impact on Neighbours
9.16 Policy A4 is concerned with impact on the amenities of neighbours and
states that development will not be permitted where it would result in an
adverse impact on neighbours through, for example, overbearing effect
or increased noise and disturbance. A significant number of objections
has been received to the proposal. The immediately adjoining neighbour
to the south (The Willows) and two of the neighbours directly opposite
the site (West Woodlodge and Imba Matombo) have strongly objected to
the proposal. The main objection raised is that the masts are visible
from their properties. Loss of view is not a material planning
consideration and cannot be used to justify refusal of this application.
9.17 The 24 metre mast was originally proposed in the southern garden but

has now been moved to the northernmost part of the garden to increase
the distance between the mast and The Willows. As a result, the mast
will be close to the neighbours opposite the site on the eastern side of
Brickyard Lane. There are high mature trees along the eastern boundary
of the application site which will screen the mast to a large extent.
Whilst the mast is a tall structure, it is relatively narrow and of a lattice
design so is not a solid structure.
9.18 The 20 metre vertical pole which is the structure nearest The Willows is
thin and will be lost against the backdrop of the sky. Due to its thin
design it is felt that the proposed pole will not appear adversely
overbearing to neighbours. The 10 metre vertical poles are again thin in
their design and will be screened to a large extent by the existing trees
along the boundaries of the site.
Effect on Public Health
9.19 The Short Wave Frequencies and the corresponding low power used by
Radio Amateurs are not associated with health risks. In addition,
although PPG8 primarily addresses the mobile phone networks it does
advise in general terms the following:
• "Health considerations and public concern can in principle be
material considerations in determining applications for planning
permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are
material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts.
It is for the decision-maker (usually the LPA) to determine what
weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.
• However, it is the Government’s firm view that the planning
system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It
remains central Government’s responsibility to decide what
measures are necessary to protect public health. In the
Government’s view, if a proposed mobile phone base station
meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be
necessary for a LPA, in processing an application for planning
permission or prior approval, to consider further the health
aspects and concerns about them.
• The Government’s acceptance of the precautionary approach
recommended by the Stewart Group’s report "mobile phones and
health") is limited to the specific recommendations in the Group’s
report and the Government’s response to them. The report does
not provide any basis for precautionary actions beyond those
already proposed. In the Government’s view, LPA's should not
implement their own precautionary policies e.g. by way of
imposing a ban or moratorium on new telecommunications
development or insisting on minimum distances between new
telecommunications development and existing development."

9.20 On this basis, and given the Government’s view it would be difficult to
sustain an objection on these grounds.
Interference with electrical equipment/reception
9.21 PPG8 advises that all users of radio equipment are required by the terms
of wireless telegraphy legislation to avoid creating undue radio
interference with other radio users, including domestic television sets,
and their equipment must be designed to minimise it. There are also
regulations made under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 that set limits
for unwanted radio frequency emissions from certain types of non-radio
equipment, such as household appliances and some office machinery
(but not computers). There are also European Regulations governing the
compatibility and immunity to electromagnetic interference of electrical
devices.
9.22 PPG8 states: "However, significant interference can arise despite these
controls. For example, the source of the interference may be a type of
equipment that is outside the scope of the regulations; or there may be
site-specific factors that give rise to interference, even though the
legislation is complied with…. If the development has yet to take place
but potential interference is causing genuine local concern, one or other
of the parties may wish to seek the help of experts to assess the
likelihood and degree of interference, but authorities should not seek out
such problems for critical examination unnecessarily… It is unlikely that
refusal of planning permission would be justified on the grounds of radio
interference from a transmitter or non-radio equipment alone except in
extreme cases. It may sometimes be appropriate to grant temporary
planning permission to allow for a trial period of operation, but this
course should not be adopted unless there is evidence of significant
interference, and only as an alternative to refusal. At the end of the trial
the final decision can be taken… Where applications which are turned
down solely or mainly on interference grounds come to appeal, the
Secretary of State will expect planning authorities to produce full details
of the evidence of interference, or likely interference, and evidence that
there are no reasonable remedies that would be satisfactory." Having
regard for the above I have no reason to object to the proposal on
grounds of electrical equipment interference.
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
10.1 The applicant has recognised the local objection and reduced the number
of masts from three to two. The locations that have been proposed
make the most of the natural screening around the application site. A
significant number of both objections and letters of support have been
received with opinion divided, even within the locality of the site.

10.2 As set out above, I consider that the visual effect on the landscape is not
significantly adverse, particularly due to the thin nature of the poles, nor
is the impact adverse on the nearby SSSI and NNR. The proposal will
not have an adverse impact on neighbours due to the restriction of 48
days on any approval and the slim design of the masts.
10.3 I have taken into account all matters raised by the Parish Council,
neighbours and all consultees but on balance I find in my view there are
insufficient reasons to justify refusal and recommend approval in this
case.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
subject to the following conditions:
1. Full Permission
2 The 24 metre lattice mast shall only be in the extended position a
maximum of 48 days in a calendar year. When not in use it shall be
maintained in its lowered position of 7.5 metres.
Reason: To protect the character of the locality in accordance with Policy
A5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999.
3 The 20 metre vertical pole and the four 10 metre vertical poles shall be in
the extended position for a maximum of 48 days in a calendar year. When
not in use it shall be lowered to the ground.
Reason: To protect the character of the locality in accordance with Policy
A5 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999.
4 Prior to the 24 metre lattice mast being erected, bird reflective markers
shall be attached to the guy ropes and retained thereafter.
Reason: To protect birds in the vicinity of the site in accordance with Policy
29 of the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009.
________________________________________________________________