Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Agent

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:

Contrary to Development Plan:

Consultations:

Representations:

Newspaper Advertisement:

30th October 2006

T-Mobile (UK) Limited Clo Agent

Stappard Howes 122 Dundyvan Road Coatbridge ML5 1DE

Installation of 15 metre High Telecommunications Flagpole, 3 Antennae with Ground Based Equipment and Electrical Meter Cabinet

Bellshill Bowling Club Hattonrigg Road Bellshill North Lanarkshire ML4 ILQ

30 Hattonrigg Councillor Harry Curran

273777660908

SIPLIBI7I931CMIMM

The site is zoned as E5 Urban Park to the East of Hattonrigg Road in The Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan 1985. The site is zoned as policy L1 (Established Leisure Facility) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Policy CS6 (Telecommunications Development) is also applicable.

No

91 Representation Letters and Petition with 199 Signatories

Not Required

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

1

2

2. That in the event that the telecommunications equipment, supporting structure or the apparatus within the site becomes redundant it must be removed. to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within one month of becoming redundant. If the site ceases to be used for telecommunications transmission, it must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within six months of cessation .

Reason: To minimise the level of visual intrusion and to ensure the reinstatement of the site to a satisfactory standard.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 24th October 2006

The Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan 1985 Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) National Planning Policy Guidance 19 Radio Telecommunication, July 2001 Planning Advice Note 62 Radio Telecommunication, September 2001 Memo from Education received 10th November 2006 Memo from Transportation Manager received 27th November 2006

Email from Councillor Harry Curran, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell received 25th October 2006. Letter from Mrs Catherine Mex,l Allan Grove , Bellshill, ML4 1BX received 1st November 2006. Letter from Mark & Karen Griffin, Meadow Rise, 34 Love Drive , Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 2nd November 2006. Letter from M Gibb,l Harvey Way, Bellshill, ML41TF received 6th November 2006. Letter from J And B Maxwell, 67 Clay Crescent, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 I T A received 6th November 2006. Letter from M Mcfall,l Kelvin Road, Bellshill, ML4 1 LN reeeived 6th November 2006. Letter from K Sanderson, 15 Glenfinnon Drive, Mossend, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 6 Senga Crescent, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from E Sanderson, 2F Deedes Street, Airdrie, ML69AG received 6th November 2006. Letter from B R Welsh, 19 Park Gate Place, Bellshill, ML4 3HE received 6th November 2006. Letter from D Welsh, 19 Park Gate Place, Bellshill, ML4 3HE received 6th November 2006. Letter from N Harmson, 8 Hill Place, Bellshill, ML4 2UE received 6th November 2006. Letter from I Dunn, 10 Marina Court, Bellshill, ML4 2SD received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 17 Hawthon Gardons, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from A Banks, 7 Felford Street, Bellshill, ML4 1 HQ, received 6th November 2006. Letter from K Mulle, 29 Bramley Drive, Bellshill, ML4 3GA received 6th November 2006. Letter from M Grerson, 10 Robert Burns Quad, Bellshill, ML4 3DF received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 1 1 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 9 Forres Crescent, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 23 Carrick Place, Bellshill, ML41 NN received 6th November 2006. Letter from S Kerr, 5 Trilir Place, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from S Gibb, 18 Mackenyie Terrace, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from J Rilley, 60 Lolay Crescent, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from R Simpson, Clayten Pate, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from R Simpson, Naesmith Walk, Belshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from T Crummie, 11 Clayton Pate, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from J Kean, 71 Hattonrigg Road, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from M Strachan, 23 Murdock Square, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from A Hay, 23 Forres Crescent, Bellshill, ML4 1 HL received 6th November 2006. Letter from K Sanders, 52 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006.

3

Letter from M Hutchell, 5 Burns Path, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1LT received 6th November 2006. Letter from L Thomson, 14 Gilmour Place, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from G McKee, 134A Rockburn Crescent, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from L McGregor, 20 Thistle Gardens, Holytown, ML1 4x2 received 6th November 2006. Letter from N Horrester, 124A Rockburn Crescent, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 53 Movisbank Gardens, Bellshill, ML4 3E1 received 6th November 2006. Letter from A Murrey, 28 A Baird Place, Bellshill, ML41 HA received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 33 Diamond Street, Bellshill, ML4 ZEN received 6th November 2006. Letter from E Ball, 57 Napier Square, Bellshill, ML4 ITF received 6th November 2006. Letter from S Bradley, 11 Amethyst Avenue, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from R Brownlie, 60 Glenmere Avenue, Mossend received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 42 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 8 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from L Kelly, 4 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from W And E Warrender, 54 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 9 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from W And E Mulligon, 12 Love Drive, Bellshill, Lanarkshire received 6th November 2006. Letter from E Bettley, 75 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 IBY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 71 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 IBY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 22 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from M Findlay, 6 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 7 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 5 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from M Kane, 1 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 38 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 44 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 9 Allan Grove, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from L Belley, 19 Allan Grove, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from D Owen, 77 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 IBY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from J Jamieson, 73 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 IBY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 63 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 55 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 53 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 IBY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 49 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 IBY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 51 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 45 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 41 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 39 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from M Bartlett, 35 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 30 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 29 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from P Hawthorne, 28 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 IBY, received 6th November 2006.

4

Letter from Owner Occupier, 24 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 26 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 20 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 16 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from M Guel, 14 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 12 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 10 Love Drive, Meadon Rise, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 10 Centenary Crescent, Bellshill, ML4 182 received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 19 Centenary Crescent, Bellshill, , received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 24 Centenary Crescent, Bellshill received 6th November 2006. Letter from Owner Occupier, 2 Centenary Crescent, Bellshill, , received 6th November 2006. Letters from G Sloan, 67 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY, received 6th November and 21 St November 2006. Letter from E McCrory, 61 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from B Skea, 65 Love Drive, Meadow Rise, Bellshill, ML4 1 BY received 6th November 2006. Letter from J Ure, 30 Love Drive, Bellshill, North Lanarkshire, ML4 1 BY, received 6th November 2006. Letter from John Wright, 69 Love Drive, Bellshill, ML4 IBY, received 8th November 2006. Letter from Hattonrigg Residents Association, 287 Hattonrigg Road, Bellshill, ML4 1 LY received 16th November 2006. Email from J Devlin, 287 Hattonrigg Road, Bellshill received 23rd November 2006 Petition with 199 Signatories received 6'h November 2006.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Miss Charmaine Mills at 01 698 3021 36.

Date: 28 November 2005

5

APPLICATION NO. S106101755lFUL

REPORT

1.

1 .I

1.2

1.3

2.

2.1

2.2

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

Description of Site and Proposal

The applicant is seeking planning permission to erect a 15 metre high telecommunications mast designed as a flagpole (with 3 No antennae), with ground based equipment and electrical meter cabinet. All proposed structures and associated cabinets are to be painted grey.

The proposed 15 metre telecommunications flagpole would be sited to the southwest corner of the Bellshill and Mossend Bowling Club on Hattonrigg Road, Bellshill. There is a 1.8 metre high wall along the boundary of the bowling club site and a large area of open space immediately to the south and to the west of the bowling club comprising Bellshill Athletic Football Club’s grounds. It is predominantly residential properties to the north and east of the bowling club which are characterised by 2 storey detached dwellings and 3 storey flatted dwellings. There is semi mature landscaping to the north and to the east of the bowling club which gives some assistance in screening the proposed mast from the dwellings. The nearest residential property is situated over 55 metres south east of the application site and the nearest school lies over 190 metres to the northwest.

The applicant has supplied a supporting statement that indicates the need for a mast within this area to meet a shortfall in coverage, which will be of general benefit to business, and domestic users in the area. Several sites were investigated including mast sharing before this was put forward. The mast is also designed to resemble a flagpole to minimise the visual impact and would be viewed in association with a 5 metre high lamppost and 9 metre high floodlight directly east.

Development Plan

The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

The site is zoned as E5 Urban Park to the East of Hattonrigg Road in The Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan 1985. The site is zoned as policy L1 (Established Leisure Facility) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Policy CS6 (Telecommunications Development) is also applicable.

Consultations and Representations

The Education Department were consulted and raised concerns regarding the health risks associated with telecommunication masts.

The Transportation Section were consulted and have no objections. However they have advised that the access road on the west side and the south side of the Bowling Club is currently private, however the proposal does not effect the access road.

Councillor Curran considers that this type of development is unsuitable adjacent to a residential area and due to the close proximity to the Hattonrigg Senior Citizens Centre which is used by a local playgroup five days a week. He requests that a Site Visit be undertaken prior to determination of the application. However a Site Visit and Hearing has been requested by objectors of the application.

6

3.4 There were 91 letters of objection and a petition with 199 signatures received following neighbour notification. A total of 79 of these letters are all in petition style. Three letters have been copied which local residents have then signed. The main objections are as follows:

Objector’s have previously objected to the telecommunications mast proposed at Clay Crescent and this application should be refused on the same grounds.

Concern over the unknown health risks involved with Telecommunication Masts being in close proximity to housing as well as a children’s grass play area, children’s daycare centre, senior citizens hall and the bowling club.

A precautionary approach should be adopted when siting these mast due to the unknown health risks. Is NLC prepared to face future recriminations for their failure to safeguard the publics health?

The potential health and safety risks to all residents and in particular to the health development of the numerous young children within the vicinity of the proposed site. If the mast is sited near the grass area which is used by children this will deter parents who reside in Meadow Rise from allowing their children to play in this area.

Due to the close proximity of the proposed site in relation to the local amenities would we be exposing our community members and in particular most vulnerable to a health risk that doesn’t exist in our community today. This would mean exposure to microwave radiation 24 hours a day. Is this reasonable when we cant be 100% sure that there are no ill effects from this technology?

What conclusive research has been done with the proposed mast type (2G or 3G) with regards to effects on health and in particular long term health?

The bowling club tends to promote good health in a good sociable environment and this seems to go against the principle.

The objectors 5 year old will sleep less than 120 metres away from the mast for 12 hours and plays in the rear garden. There is a high ratio of children in this 4 bedroom development.

Perceived health concerns related to masts create anxiety levels that are in themselves unhealthy and detrimental to the well being of the local community. Therefore, the presence of the mast would be a constant reminder reinforcing the fear of health issues and under Regulations PPG8 (29) this is a material consideration.

The intended future development of footballlsports facilities on ground adjacent to the proposed site. This sport development aims to promote diversity for children in this area and develop good citizenship qualities within our young people. More children coming into the area will be potentially at risk of developing health problems.

The Stewart Report recommends an individual risk assessment should be carried out on any proposed telecommunications site and to date Stappard Howes have failed to produce such a report. The failure to carry out such a risk assessment shows that Stappard Howes are only assuming that there will be no adverse effect on the local residents and they are unaware of any local anomalies that may aggravate the situation.

The North Road Play Group, St Geralds Primary School and Noble Primary School are far too near the site which is in direct conflict with national guidelines on the location of these structures. The mast should not be erected near schools as young children should not be exposed to these masts for more than 6 hours per day.

7

(1 3) Why does Stappard Howes not investigate less populated areas e.g. the nearby industrial area. Reports from Government, the Private Sector and Lobbyists have suggested that mast sharing should be first option and the location of a mast within a residential area should only be considered once all the other commercial areas, industrial areas and farmland areas are exhausted.

(14) Have T-mobile investigated the use of any other sites that are less densley populated e.g the open fields at the other side of the housing estate. Is the proposed site the best location for the mast or is it simply a matter of the easiest and most convenient for T- Mobile. There are a number of masts within this area most visible from certain parts of the Hattonrigg Road and is site sharing an option?

(15) There is no justification for further mobile phone masts in the area when we have perfectly good receptions in the area and certainly would not endorse further equipment for the purposes of texting and picture messaging.

(16) The lack of proper factual consultation of the type of equipment being used (power involved).

(17) All the residents of the ‘George Wimpey Estate’ should be neighbour notified as this would act as a ‘negative signpost’ to the entrance of the new estate. All residents concerned or potentially affected by this structure should have been neighbour notified, for example, the residents of Hattonrigg Road who would see this tall structure from their homes and families with children using the play area or attending children’s activities within the bowling club.

(18) The effect the mast installation will have on the value of local property. Should the local residents be asked to take on the burden of suffering material measurable loss in property price for the sake of T-Mobile and Bellshill and Mossend Bowling Club.

(19) Will the 15 metre mast grow as new technology is established? Can the old or new technology be added to the mast without the residents being consulted and will other phone service providers be adding to the mast in the future?

(20) The description ‘flagpole’ is objectionable as the objector has been in contact with 3 producers of flagpoles and the tallest that is in production by these manufacturers is 12 metres whilst the most common is 10 metres.

(21) Due to the height of this structure it would totally dominate the skyline and would be visible from most houses within the area, especially the objector’s own and immediate neighbours, as well as the flats and housing on Hattonrigg Road. The proposed structure would be far higher than the natural trees, lampposts and current buildings.

(22) The structure will ruin views from 80% of one of the objectors home such as his living room, kitchenldiner, 3 bedrooms and backgarden. There is a thin boundary of trees to the rear of his dwellinghouse but this is sparse most of the year and there would be a constant view through to the mast which is less than 50 feet from his boundary

(23) Recently NLC have been trying to push forward development within this part of Bellshill e.g. new houses, road upgrades, new training park and new lighting. Erecting this structure would set back the regeneration of this area as well as label this immediate area as a phonemast ‘hotspot’, due to the number of already existing masts.

(24) This area has a history of cars being burned out and is there any proof that this structure would be safe under these circumstances? The mast will also cause anti social behaviour

8

as children will no longer be able to play on the nearby grass area.

The photograph example of a flagpole given by Stappard Howes (Bowling Club, St Vincent Street, Glasgow) show the flagpole having a flag. The objector has been on site and spoken to a club representative who has advised that there has never been a flag on the pole. Is this then a true picture?

It is appreciated that the club will receive revenue from the supplier for the mast, the members of the club will only see this structure for a few hours in the week, however the residents will have the burden everyday. The Bellshill Bowling Club is only interested in financial gain and has not given consideration for the wider community.

The Committee who represent the Club and its members should have read the Stewart Report and sought independent advice and feedback from its neighbours before they made a decision on the lease of the land.

Other countries have introduced more stringent regulations regarding emission levels and positioning of such structures.

The installation of a base station at the proposed site ignores all previous recommendations of any credible scientific survey carried out and adopts the attitude similar to that with the tobacco industry when CEPs believed that smoking didn’t cause death or addiction.

This application has caused a great deal of anguish to the local community and although it is not a material consideration it should be noted.

The residents pay to maintain the piece of land on the left of the bowling club and the children play on this ground which is near the mast.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other relevant material considerations. The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. The site is zoned as E5 Urban Park to the East of Hattonrigg Road which aims to promote the development of an urban park on land to the east of Hattonrigg Road. However, this zoning has been superseded by the surrounding residential development, thus the contemporary zoning and policies contained within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) are more relevant to the consideration of this proposal.

4.2 The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) zones the site as policy L1 (Established Leisure Facility). This policy states that the Council will seek to protect and enhance existing leisure facilities by: implementing a programme of upgrading and refurbishment of Council facilities, supporting private sector and community initiatives in suitable locations, and resisting the loss of leisure facilities where a shortfall in provision for that locality will result. The telecommunication mast will not be detrimental to the amenity of the bowling club which has been established for many years and will not effect people from using this leisure facility. In land use terms the proposal is compliant with the development plan.

4.3 Policy CS6 indicates that telecommunications developments will be considered using a precautionary approach and will seek to locate such developments outwith densely populated areas or areas where there are sensitive uses and will encourage the use of site sharing and mast sharing where it represents the best environmental solution in other cases. The policy also seeks to resist developments where the environmental impact of the development would

9

4.4

4.5

4.6

adversely affect the appearance of Green Belt areas. The proposed flagpole design of the mast is visually acceptable, and will have a similar appearance to the surrounding street furniture and will not have a significant visual impact. Given that there is a mix of trees and shrubbery nearby which provide a degree of screening, the visual impact will be minimal and the boundary wall will hide the associated cabinets. The nearest residential property is situated over 55 metres south east of the application site, the nearest school lies over 190 metres to the northwest and there is a Senior Citizens Centre which is also used as a children’s day care centre approximately 90 metres north of the application site. Efforts have been made by the applicant to distance the equipment from the school and other buildings with sensitive uses as much as possible. The applicant has provided details of several sites that were investigated prior to the submission of this application however due to limited coverage, lack of site providers and the inability to site- share with any other telecommunications installations in the surrounding area, the application site was chosen to provide the appropriate network coverage. Thus, the proposal is held to comply with policy CS6.

NPPG 19 provides support for telecommunications development where the applicants have demonstrated the ability to carefully consider the siting and design options, and where the possible environmental effects have been minimised. It indicates that where the applicant has taken all these factors into consideration, refusal is unlikely to be warranted. With regards to PAN 62, it should be noted that it is preferred to locate telecommunication equipment in unobtrusive locations. The applicant has satisfied the criteria set out in both NPPG 19 and PAN 62.

In relation to the comments from the Education Department, the ICNIRP Declaration supplied states that the proposal is in compliance with the international safety standards for electro- magnetic radiation emissions. NPPG 19 states that where the ICNIRP declaration has been carried out, the role of the planning authority shall be to assess such proposals in terms of siting and design and the consideration of options or alternatives.

In relation to the grounds of objection these are addressed as follows:

The planning assessment can only take into consideration the merits of the current proposal.

The nearest residential property is situated over 55 metres south east of the application site, the nearest school lies over 190 metres to the northwest and there is a Senior Citizens Centre which is also used as a children’s day care centre approximately 90 metres north of the application site. The required ICNIRP Declaration has been supplied stating that the proposal is in compliance with the international safety standards for electro-magnetic radiation emissions. It is accepted that there is significant public awareness of the possible health risks associated with telecommunications apparatus. However, given that the applicant has provided the necessary ICNIRP certificate, it is considered that concerns about health implications are not sufficient to justify refusal of this planning application and complies with local plan policy CS6 and national planning guidance in this respect.

In terms of health risks associated with telecommunication equipment this is addressed in points 2-8 above. PPG28 is irrelevant in this case as this is Planning Policy Guidance for England. The proposed development is in accordance with national policy guidance as issued by the Scottish Executive. The proposal is in accordance with NPPG 19 and PAN 62 as established in paragraph 4.4.

The planning assessment can only take into consideration the merits of the current proposal and not future developments. In terms of health risks associated with telecommunication equipment this is addressed in points 2-8 above.

10

In terms of an individual risk assessment, the ICNIRP certificate represents that the planned equipment is in full compliance with the requirements of radio frequency (RF) public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

The proposed mast is located approximately 190 metres from the nearest school building. Efforts have been made by the applicant to distance the mast from the school as much as possible. This position is considered acceptable.

The technical justification submitted as part of the application states that the site is required to provide coverage for the residential area of Bellshill. There are a limited number of sites available within the locality. Nonetheless the proposed location is considered acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Many alternative sites were considered. However due to limited coverage, lack of site providers and the inability to site-share with any other telecommunications installations in the surrounding area, the application site was chosen to provide the appropriate network coverage. This position is considered to be accepted.

The relevant supporting statements, justification and ICNIRP certificate have all been submitted as part of the application and satisfies the criteria set out in the Ten Commitments as set out by the Mobile Operators Association.

The neighbour notification carried out was done so as per statutory requirements.

Property value is not a material consideration and cannot therefore be assessed as part of this application.

The planning assessment can only take into consideration the merits of the current proposal.

This is the description of the telecommunication mast as given by the applicant due to the design of the mast. The description provided is considered appropriate,

(21 & 22)The proposed mast is located approximately 55 metres from the nearest dwellinghouse. It is thought that the proposal will not have a detrimental effect on the residential area surrounding Hattonrigg Road. The national guidance requires that any masts minimise any detrimental visual impact on surrounding residential areas and the applicant has taken measures to achieve this. Telecommunication equipment generally requires to be located in prominent positions in order to maximise coverage, to ensure the number of installations is kept to a minimum. In this instance it is felt that the applicant has reached a balance between providing a large area of coverage while utilising the landform, buildings and mast structure to minimise the visual impact on the surrounding area. It is thought that the proposal will not change the character of the area and will not detract from its quality.

(23) Whilst the concerns of the objectors are noted the mast is sited within the existing Bowling Club grounds and is not on a public road or an area intended for open space or the proposed training park. Therefore it is considered that the mast will not have a detrimental impact on the recent improvements made within the surrounding area of Hattonrigg Road.

(24) The concerns raised by the objectors are noted in respect of the possible increase in anti-social behaviour, however these concerns are not material planning considerations and therefore cannot be assessed as part of this application. In any case of anti-social behaviour this is a matter to be dealt with by the enforcing authorities, namely the police, not the Planning Authority.

11

(25) The photograph provided was for indication purposes only and the design and proposed elevations of the flagpole is provided within the submitted plans.

(268t27) This is not a material consideration and cannot therefore be assessed as part of this application.

(28) In terms of regulations for telecommunications equipment installed in other countries this is not a material consideration and cannot therefore be assessed as part of this application.

(29) The required ICNIRP certificate has been submitted. In regard to the point raised about the tobacco industry this is not a material considerations and cannot therefore be assessed as part of this application.

The concerns and feelings of the objectors are noted and have been addressed within the context of this report.

(30)

(31) In regard to who is responsible for paying the maintenance of the adjacent land this is not a material consideration and cannot be assessed as part of this application. In regard to children playing on this land in terms of health risks this has been addressed in points 2-8.

4.7 In conclusion it is considered that in terms of siting and design the proposed development is acceptable and it should not significantly impact on the existing residential area or the surrounding areas of open space. The proposed development is in accordance with national policy guidance and advice in NPPG 19 and PAN 62 Radio Telecommunications and meets the criteria stipulated in local plan policy CS6. Taking into account the development plan and all material considerations including national and local policies, it is recommended that planning permission should be granted in this case.

4.8 A Site Visit has been requested by the local member and a Site Visit and Hearing has been requested by objectors prior to the determination of this application.

12