Agenda item

Report of the Planning & Development Director.

The Chairman asked if Members had any questions of Officers.

A Member stated that the Barbican Estate already had fibre optic internet so there was no need for the antennas to serve the residents. He stated that 5G small cell infrastructure was proceeding at pace in the Square Mile as well as FTTP Fibre to the Premise Services, so it was hard to see a need for this technology outside the Barbican either. Given the large buildings in the City and with the line of sight requirement this would not benefit buildings in the Square Mile. The Member added that there were problematic heritage considerations with the proposal to locate the equipment on a listed building. He invited Officers to confirm whether any of these assertions were incorrect. The stated that he understood why this application had to come to the Sub-Committee but he would be supporting the Officer's recommendation to reject the application.

Seeing no further questions the Chairman moved to the vote.

The Sub-Committee proceeded to vote on the recommendations before them.

           Votes were cast as follows: IN FAVOUR – 12 votes

                                                       OPPOSED –  0 votes

                                                       There were no abstentions.

The recommendations were therefore carried unanimously.

[Deputy Michael Cassidy, Ian Bishop-Laggett, Anthony Fitzpatrick, Alderman Hughes-Penney, Deputy Edward Lord, Deputy Brian Mooney, Deputy Alastair Moss, and Deputy Henry Pollard were not in attendance for this item and therefore did not vote.]

RESOLVED - That the Development Director be authorised to issue a decision notice refusing to grant planning permission for the above proposal for the following reasons:

1. No evidence of consultation with nearby schools has been submitted and the applicant has failed to certify that the proposed equipment together with the existing equipment when operational, would not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection, contrary to paragraph 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposals would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest and setting of Cromwell Tower as part of the Barbican Estate (Grade II) and the Barbican and Golden Lane Conservation Area, causing less than substantial harm to their heritage significance as a result of direct and indirect impacts on the heritage assets. The harm would not be outweighed by public benefits. The proposal is not in accordance with London Plan Policy HC1; Local Plan Policies CS 12, DM 12.1, DM 12.3; HE1; Draft City Plan Policies S11 and HE1 and the NPPF.

3. The proposals would fail to protect and enhance views of the Barbican Towers as identified city landmarks and is not in accordance with Local Plan policy CS13 (2), emerging City Plan 2040 S13 and guidance in the Protected Views SPD.