Agenda and minutes

None were received.

Members and Officers are requested to give notice of any personal or prejudicial interest and the nature of that interest, relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the relevant Code of Conduct.

No declarations of interest were received.

Minutes of the meeting held on 24 November 2011.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 November 2010 be confirmed as a correct record.

Report of the Head of Planning Services

Further to Minute No. 41 of the Planning Committee held on 27 July 2011, the Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning Services recommending that the above Prior Notification Procedure application for the erection of a replacement 15 metre high telecommunications mast and associated ground based equipment cabinet (alternative to S/2008/0703 refused 15 Oct 2008 allowed on appeal 27 May 2009) be granted subject to the conditions and for the reasons stated or referred to in the report.

The Application had been considered at by the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 27 July 2011 but had been deferred in order to seek clarification on matters relating to the ground based equipment cabinets and to enable the Head of Planning Services to discuss possible alternative sites with the applicant.

The proposed installation would be an identical replacement of the existing 15 metre installation and would be positioned on a piece of footway on the west side of Marsh Brows, the south of Granton Close and the north side of Hillary Court.

It had been established, since the Planning Committee meeting of the 27 July, that the additional cabinet, to the left side of the two previously allowed, had been erected by another operator in 2010 and did not require either prior approval or planning permission. 

The new cabinet proposed within the application would also not require either planning permission or prior approval, as, whilst bigger than the other cabinets, it was still under 2.5 cubic metres.  The impact of ground based equipment could not therefore be put forward as a reason for refusal as it was depicted purely for information and context.

The Head of Planning Services reported that the issue of alternatives had been discussed with the applicant, however the discussions had not proved productive as the applicant did not need to demonstrate a search of alternative sites. 

Councillor Griffiths reported that a meeting had been arranged between Merseytravel and Network Rail and that the issue of locating a mast on the car park adjacent to the site of the existing mast would be discussed. Members felt that a decision should not be made on the application until the outcome of that meeting was known.

RESOLVED:

That this item be deferred to a further meeting of this Committee to be held on Tuesday 16 August at the Town Hall Bootle Commencing at 5.30 pm to enable Members to consider the outcome of the meeting between Merseytravel and Network Rail before making a decision.