O
Scale 1:750
Map Dated: 17/02/2016
CA/15/02669/FUL
© Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100019614
Canterbury City Council
Military Road
Canterbury
Kent
CT1 1YW
AGENDA ITEM NO 12
PLANNING COMMITTEE
01 March 2016
APPLICATION NUMBER
:
CA//15/02669/FUL
PROPOSAL
:
LOCATION OF SITE
:
Retention of a 1200mm-high square pipe on a concrete
base containing a retractable aerial mast (revised
scheme).
6 Thornhurst, Churchill Avenue, Herne Bay, CT6 6SQ
APPLICATION TYPE
:
FULL APPLICATION
DATE REGISTERED
:
11 December 2015
GOVERNMENT
PERFORMANCE
TARGET DATE
:
05 February 2016
CONSERVATION AREA
:
NO
LISTED BUILDING
:
NOT LISTED
WARD
:
Beltinge
APPLICANT
:
Mr A Martins
AGENT
:
South East Architectural Services Ltd
CASE OFFICER:
Miss Sian Smith
WEB LINK:
https://publicaccess.canterbury.gov.uk/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=extern
alDocuments&keyVal=_CANTE_DCAPR_101874
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1. The modern development of Thornhurst is primarily a mix of bungalows and two-storey
units set within a located between Malvern Park, Churchill Avenue and Highfields Avenue,
Herne Bay. The application site lies to the rear (south-east) of No. 6 Thornhurst Avenue, a
single-storey brick dwelling.
2. Within the rear amenity space of No. 6 Thornhurst Avenue, and embedded in what Officers
understand is a communal walkway, is an unauthorised radio aerial mast erected in 2012
for amateur radio operation. The existing retractable mast is a metal lattice set within a
metal frame that stands to 10.5m when raised and 3m when lowered by turning handle
located towards the base. The existing mast is set within 1 cubic metre of concrete but also
has three guy wires of 1.2m that anchor the mast at ground level.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
3. A previous application for the retention of the radio aerial and mast to the rear of No. 6
Thornhurst was dismissed at appeal under reference: APP/J2210/D/15/3051141 (the
appeal) because the proposal was in conflict with the core planning principles which seek
high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of
land and buildings. The previous planning application CA//14/00956/FUL was refused by
Planning Committee.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4. The proposal under consideration is for the retention of the radio aerial and mast to the
rear of No. 6 Thornhurst (revised scheme). It is noted that the previous application ref:
CA//14/00956/FUL reported a height of 15m based on the submitted information, however
this was amended in the appeal to 10m at its extended height. The development as
submitted indicates a mast height of 10.5m in both the existing and proposed elevations.
The covering letter submitted with the application states that the applicant is seeking to
retain the existing mast and affix an antenna that is reduced in scale from the previously
refused scheme. This current application therefore seeks permission for a radio mast which
stands to 10.5m when raised and 3m when lowered together with a reduced antenna that
measures approximately 5m in width.
REPRESENTATIONS
5. Overall there have been 47 comments received: 23 objections and 24 in support. Multiple
responses have been received from some addresses; however these are counted as one
response from that particular address.
6. The 23 letters of objection relate to:
 The mast and aerial is contrary to the existing tenancy agreement for no masts or
dishes.
 The mast has been erected without planning permission.
 The mast and aerial are a visual intrusion.
 The structure impinges on the residents and a public right of way.
 Loss of light and enclosure.
 Health and safety issues caused by the mast and aerial.
 Interferes with TV and radio.
 The application has already been refused and dismissed at appeal.
7. The 24 letters of support relate to:
 The antenna/mast is not so intrusive to justify refusal.
 It is of value to the community for emergency communications purposes.
 There are no planing policies in place to refer to radio masts
 It is a lawful hobby that requires technical competence and should be allowed to
continue to pass on knowledge and experience to the next generation.
 The aerial mast will be here only in this man’s life span, it is not finite as a brick
structure would be.

There is no interference from the structure on TV or radio.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
8. Canterbury District Local Plan First Review 2006
BE1 - High quality designs, sustainable developments and specific design, amenity and
landscape criteria to which the Council will have regard: cross-refers to SPGs.
BE3 - Design statements/development briefs to be submitted with applications.
9. Canterbury District Local Plan Publication Draft 2014
SP1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
DBE1 - All development to incorporate sustainable design and construction measures.
DBE3 - Development proposals to be of high quality, to be assessed against specific
amenity, visual, landscape, accessibility and highways criteria.
ASSESSMENT
10. This application is reported to the planning committee because more than 4
representations were received supporting the proposed development. The main issues of
consideration are:
 Principle
 Living conditions
 Character and appearance of the development
11. This application is a revised scheme previously refused under reference CA//14/00956/FUL
for the retention of the radio aerial and mast to the rear of No. 6 Thornhurst, which was
subsequently dismissed at appeal. The appeal was assessed and determined against the
relevant policies the Canterbury District Local Plan (2006), the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) and the emerging Canterbury District Local Plan
Publication Draft 2014 and these remain unchanged. Additionally, a site visit was
conducted on 23 December 2015 to determine whether there had been any material
changes to the site or its surroundings and from the description of the site contained in the
Officer's report on the original file it does not appear that a material change has occurred
which would prejudice this current application.
Living conditions
12. The main issues relate to the impact of the radio mast and antenna on the character of the
residential area and the amenities of neighbours. I note differences in the scale of the mast
in the current application compared to the previous application. It is noted that the previous
application reference CA//14/00956/FUL reported a height of 15m based on the submitted
information, however this was amended in the appeal to 10m at its extended height. The
development as submitted indicates a mast height of 10.5m in both the existing and
proposed elevations. Similarly, the mast in its lowered position was taken at 3.1m at the
appeal however the application drawings show that it is now 3m. This current application
seeks permission for a radio mast which stands to 10.5m when raised and 3m when
lowered. The antenna is located towards the top of the mast and is a horizontal multielement arrangement that is currently a substantial element measuring 7.5m in width,
however this would be reduced as part of this application to 5m in width. It is on this basis
that the assessment will be made.
13. The radio mast is situated approximately 3m from the boundary with No. 5 Thornhurst and
around 1.5m from the application property and is therefore in very close proximity to the
single-storey residential dwellings. Despite its latticework structure the mast is an imposing
feature that physically dominates the low-rise dwellings, patios and outdoor amenity space
to the rear of No. 5 Thornhurst. The constant presence of this dominant and highly visible
structure close to the boundary fence, together with a multi-element horizontal aerial, is
considered to engender an overbearing and oppressive impact that is detrimental to the
amenity of No. 5 Thornhurst.
14. Further, the Inspector in considering the existing mast which is in place at the site found
that in views from the garden of No.5, the aerial is a looming prospect above the property,
and although there are no boundary overhanging elements, the presence of a significant
structure above the garden has a significantly enclosing effect. Similarly, in its lowered
position, it would also have an enclosing and obtrusive effect on users of the garden of No.
5. As such, the resulting detrimental impact on outlook results in harm to the living
conditions of the occupiers of this property contrary to the NPPF core planning principle
that seeks to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants and
the provisions of Policy BE1 of the Local Plan 2006 and emerging Policy DBE3 of the
Canterbury District Local Plan Publication Draft 2014.
Character and appearance of the development
15. The proposal under consideration is for a retractable mast that stands to 10.5m when
raised and 3.1m when lowered together with a antenna that measures around 5m in width.
The mast has a lightweight appearance, nonetheless its scale and height to the rear
elevation would be significantly prominent in views from Churchill Avenue, Highfields
Avenue and along Winston Gardens despite the screening afforded by the trees to the
south and east of the site. Indeed, when fully raised the existing structure, even with an
antenna reduced in scale from the previous proposal, is an unduly prominent and
conspicuous element looming above the ridge of nearby dwellings and tree canopy such
that it is a dominant feature of the town-scape. While the latticework structure provides an
element of transparency, the metal frame visually defines the structure providing a solid
definition against the sky-line. Also, it reads as a stand-alone utilitarian feature away from
other town-scape features such as pylons, telegraph poles and overhead wires. It is
therefore out of character and an alien element within the residential context in which its
sits and constitutes an undesirable visual intrusion which is harmful to the character of the
area. In this proposal the antenna would be reduced in size relative to the previous
scheme, however this minor reduction in size would not significantly lessen its visual
impact from an area characterised by domestic low rise buildings. As such, despite the
applicant's intention to reduce the visual impact, the proposal would still have a detrimental
visual impact on the character and appearance of the area contrary to NPPF Section 7
which requires good design and the provisions of Policy BE1 of the Local Plan 2006 and
emerging policy DBE3 of the Canterbury District Local Plan Publication Draft 2014.
Other issues
16. Officers note concerns raised about the effect on television and radio reception and on
health, however there is no Government published planning guidance or other evidence
that would suggest that either impact is likely and, in any event, the former is a matter
covered by licensing provisions and is not relevant to the determination of the planning
application.
17. It is noted that whilst amateur radio aerials are generally used for leisure and hobby
purposes they can, as argued in the application submission and in representations, provide
an important service to the benefit of the emergency services and in times of distress or
disaster. Section 5 of the NPPF supports high quality communications infrastructure in
principle and it is noted that the structure provides some potential benefits; nonetheless in
this case these benefits are not considered to outweigh the harm identified above.
Conclusion
18. To conclude, the scale, height, design and location of the mast and aerial is considered to
negatively impact on the character and appearance of the area and amenity of a
neighbouring property contrary to the provisions contained within the NPPF and
requirements of Policy BE1 of the Local Plan 2006. For these reasons it is recommended
that the application to retain the existing mast and aerial is refused.
DRAFT CONDITIONS/REASONS FOR DECISION NOTICE
Application No: CA/15/02669/FUL
Proposal:
Retention of a 1200mm-high square pipe on a concrete base containing a
Location:
retractable aerial mast (revised scheme).
6 Thornhurst, Churchill Avenue, Herne Bay, CT6 6SQ
CONDITIONS/REASONS:
1
The development, by reason of its scale, height and location results in an
incongruous and obtrusive element within the street-scene and is harmful to
the visual amenity of the residential area contrary to Policy BE1 of the Local
Plan 2006, emerging Policy DBE3 of the Canterbury District Local Plan
Publication Draft 2014 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning
Policy Framework.
2
The development, by reason of its scale, height and location results in an
overbearing and oppressive impact to the rear of No. 5 Thornhurst and
impedes free movement along a communal access path to the rear of Nos. 5
& 6 Thornhurst. In these respects the development has a harmful impact on
residential amenity and accessibility contrary to Policy BE1 of the Local Plan
2006, emerging Policy DBE3 of the Canterbury District Local Plan
Publication Draft 2014 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning
Policy Framework.