Cornwall planning: New 5G aerial would be 'visually harmful' in conservation area, say opponents
Plans to double telecommunications equipment on the roof of a college building to provide 5G coverage would be "visually harmful" in a conservation area, according to those opposing the move.
An application was submitted to Cornwall Council to replace three existing antennas with six antennas and other equipment on the roof of Cornish College, a Cornwall College building which houses Falmouth Marine School on Killigrew Street, Falmouth. The matter was brought before the council's central planning committee yesterday (Monday, November 18), by local member Cllr Alan Rowe due to his concerns regarding the proposal’s impact on the setting of the conservation area.
A planning officer noted that the proposed increase in the number and height of masts will have "a degree of additional impact on the built environment, Falmouth conservation area and the nearby listed buildings of St Mary's Church and Presbytery" as well as six properties in Killigrew Street.
READ MORE: 'Shark' claim as 'enormous' fin appears in water off Cornwall
"However, this increased impact is less than significant and adjudged to be minor in nature taking into account the existing site context and existing equipment. The public and economic benefits of 5G connectivity are considered to outweigh the minor harm to the built and historic environment." The application was recommended for approval.
Falmouth Town Council had previously recommended refusal due to the conservation area and the proposal's close proximity to eight Grade II listed buildings. "There is a significant increase in the amount of equipment with more extensive support structures which almost double in height which have a negative impact on views from around the site, particularly from Trelawney Road and Killigrew Street," the council stated.
To sign up to the weekly Cornwall Politics newsletter click here.
Cllr Jude Robinson, from the town council, told the planning committee: "We probably all agree that given the neighbourhood plan and our design guidance this would not have been allowed if it had been a new application. Our concern is that we keep trampling over guidelines on the basis that they've already been trampled on."
Cllr Rowe, who represents the area, said: "The proposal is considerably larger than what is already there, so it will be visually harmful. There is no question of that. It falls foul of the neighbourhood development plan. We have the plan for a reason - it's there to be adhered to.
"The whole argument and rationale for allowing this seems to be that there's already something there, so actually let's put something bigger there. This will be cumulatively worse. It's for the applicant to go away and think where else it could go."
Committee chairman Cllr Alan Jewell: "I think it is harmful. I won't be supporting it as I think you could have that aerial situated in a false tree-like structure like elsewhere." Cllr Peter Guest replied: "I hear what you're saying but I think we have to balance this against the increased benefits not only for the residents and the college, but local businesses as well."
"I don't wish to deride the conservation area, but I haven't really seen much that tells me this is a lovely area. I don't know it so I'm talking only from what I'm seeing, but there's nothing beautiful there," said Cllr Peter Perry. Cllr Jewell jumped back in to say the committee was seeing photos taken on behalf of the applicant, which didn't show the beautiful St Mary's Church opposite. "It would have been appropriate if we could have seen the relevant bits in the conservation area," added Cllr Perry.
Cllr John Fitter believed the "horse has bolted" and the committee would be on flimsy ground if it refused and the applicant went to appeal. Cllr Peter Williams said the benefits of 5G in Falmouth would be "enormous". He added: "We've got 7,200 students bringing in £70m in that area, and we're not supporting these people. We've got to think outside the box here."
He proposed approval, which was carried by seven votes to three.