Technical Notes 2025, Issue 1 - Telecommunications Masts – Mosshead, Bearsden

1.1 The purpose of this Technical Note is to respond to queries raised at the meeting of Planning Board on 10^th December 2024 in relation to the granting of the following Telecommunication Prior Notification applications:

• TP/ED/23/0694 - PROPOSED 17.5M HIGH ORION V2 POLE, 2 NO CABINETS AND ASSOCIATED ANCILLARY WORKS at Stockiemuir Avenue, Bearsden.
  Granted at the meeting of Planning Board of 28^th March 2024.
• TP/ED/24/0437 ERECTION OF 17.5 METRE HIGH TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST WITH ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT at Land adjacent To Bailie Drive, Bearsden.
  Granted under delegated powers on 27^th September 2024.

1.2 The questions raised included:

• The adequacy of the neighbour notification process undertaken for each application;
• The cumulative impact of telecommunication masts;
• Concern that contradictory information was provided relative to consideration of alternative sites; and
• Consideration of land ownership and consent given by landowner.

1.3 The following sections seeks to address these questions and outline the policy and procedural context for these types of applications.

2.1 Permitted Development Rights (PDR) refers to those types of development which are granted planning permission through national legislation in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 as amended (GPDO), meaning that they can be carried out without a planning application.

2.2 PDR are organised into a series of “classes”, whereby each class specifies the type(s) of development for which planning permission is granted. Most PDR are subject to conditions and/or restrictions. These may, for example specify the maximum size or scale of what is permitted, restrict or dis-apply the rights in certain locations (e.g. Conservation Areas or National Scenic Areas), or provide that the PDR only apply to certain developers (e.g. statutory undertakers).

2.3 Class 67 of the GPDO sets out the PDR for development by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator for the purposes of the operator’s electronic communication network in, on, over land controlled by that operator or in accordance with the Electronic Communications Code. Class 67 covers a variety of different types of digital and telecommunications infrastructure, equipment and apparatus. Additional information can be found in Annex G of Planning Circular – “Non domestic permitted development rights” which sets out the type of developments that can be carried out and the limitations which apply in certain designated areas and other key provisions.

2.4 PDR for certain types of development within Class 67 is subject to the condition that the developer must give written notice to the Planning authority of their intention to carry out the development at least 28 days before development is to commence and must include a detailed description of the development, a plan showing its location and, if relevant, an International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) declaration.

2.5 Depending on the type of development proposed under Class 67, the developer may need to, before carrying out the relevant works, apply to the Planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required in relation to certain aspects of the proposed development, such as its siting and design. This is referred to as a ‘Prior Notification application’. Planning authorities have set timescales within which to make a determination as to whether prior approval is required and also to grant or refuse prior approval.

2.6 When determining applications for prior approval, it should be noted that the principle of the development is already established through the GPDO. Only policies relating to those matters subject to prior approval can be taken into account.

2.7 Prior approval can be granted or refused by the Planning authority. There is a right of appeal to Scottish Ministers against the refusal of prior approval or against conditions attached to the grant of prior approval, as prescribed in Class 67 of the GPDO.

2.8 Further information on the prior approval regimes which apply under Class 67 is contained within Annex A of this document and within Annex G of Planning Circular – “Non domestic permitted development rights”.

3.1 The role of Planning in supporting digital communication infrastructure and strengthening capacity and coverage across Scotland is emphasised by the Scottish Government as outlined in Scottish Government Planning Guidance: Digital Telecommunications and Planning Circular 2/2024: Non-Domestic Permitted Development Rights, as well as National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4).

3.2 PDR for Class 67 have been substantially amended in recent years by the Scottish Government. The purpose of these changes has been to support a range of existing communication services and facilitate new services to help Scotland become a world class digital economy. The Scottish Government Planning Guidance: Digital Telecommunications outlines that it is a fundamentally important utility which allows people to be connected for business and social purposes at work, home or remotely, with greater demands on fixed and wireless communications.

3.3 In addition, the Scottish Government Planning Guidance: Digital Telecommunications states that the planning system can assist in addressing the gaps in connectivity and barriers to digital access by supporting the delivery of new digital services and technological improvements, particularly in areas with no or low connectivity capacity. These factors are critical to NPF4 aspirations which seek to:

• tackle climate change and protect local environments from its damaging impacts by reducing the need to travel and to contribute to a net zero society.
• unlock opportunities for businesses, employment and remote working.
• support investment and population growth in rural areas.
• create better places by influencing the pattern and location of development and ensure connectivity is where it is needed.
• build ‘smart’ communities to facilitate more sustainable ways of living.

4.1 The requirements governing the neighbour notification procedures for all Prior Approval applications relating to the construction and installation of telecommunications masts are set out under Part 20, Class 67 of The Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development (Scotland) (Amendment) Order 2017.

4.2 All neighbouring properties located within a radius of 20 metres of the application site require to be notified as part of the application process, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The extent of the application site is defined by the red line site boundary shown on the submitted location plan.

4.3 In relation to prior notification application TP/ED/23/0694, this application was validated on 7^th December 2023 and all neighbouring properties located within a radius of 20 metres of the application site were sent notification letters on this date by the Planning Service. A total of 35 neighbouring addresses were notified, which are listed as follows:

Flat 1A, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 1B, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 1C, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 1D, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 1E, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 2A, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 2B, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 2C, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 2D, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 2E, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 3A, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 3B, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 3C, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 3D, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 3E, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 4A, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 4B, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 4C, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 4D, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 4E, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 5A, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 5B, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 5C, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 5D, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 5E, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 6A, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 6B, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 6C, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 6D, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Flat 6E, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
Garden Flat, Lennox Court, 14 Sutherland Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JW
59 Stockiemuir Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JJ
61 Stockiemuir Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JJ
63 Stockiemuir Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JJ
65 Stockiemuir Avenue, Bearsden, G61 3JJ

4.4 In relation to prior notification application TP/ED/24/0437, this application was validated on 7^th August 2024 and all neighbouring properties located within a radius of 20 metres of the application site were sent notification letters on 8^th August 2024 by the Planning Service. A total of 2 neighbouring addresses were notified, which are listed as follows:

7 The Poplars, Bearsden, G61 4SD
1 St Andrews Place, Grampian Way, Bearsden, G61 4SR

4.5 In addition, both applications were published in the planning weekly list. The planning weekly list is available through the Council’s planning applications portal search on the website under the tab ‘Weekly/Monthly Lists’.

4.6 Although the number of neighbouring properties that were notified for planning application TP/ED/23/0694 was much higher, this can be explained by the fact that this site is in a more densely populated part of the Mosshead neighbourhood and as such there were a larger number of neighbouring properties located within a 20-metre radius of the application site. Neighbour notification for all applications requires to be carried out in a consistent manner in accordance with the relevant legislation, as outlined.

4.7 A concern was raised in relation to a reference to “1 Grampian Way” being the nearest residential property to the proposed development outlined in TP/ED/24/0437. In respect of this, it can be confirmed and clarified that the property being referred to and assessed in the report of handling is 1 St Andrew’s Place. This discrepancy in the report arose due to where this neighbouring property is situated, adjacent to the road entrance into Grampian Way.

4.8 Scaled measurements have been taken from the location plan that was submitted for prior notification application TP/ED/24/0437 and it can be confirmed that all neighbouring properties located within a 20-metre radius of the application site were notified, meeting the legislative requirements as outlined above.

4.9 It is worth noting that there is no statutory requirement for pre-application consultation to be undertaken by the applicant for this type of application.

5.1 Concerns were raised referring to the statement within the report of handling of prior notification application TP/ED/24/0437 which stated that “there are no existing masts nearby, therefore the proposal does not result in a cumulative visual impact”. Although not built at the time of the assessment of TP/ED/24/0437, the prior notification application TP/ED/23/0694 had granted permission for a telecommunications mast nearby, at Stockiemuir Avenue. It has been suggested that this should have been considered as a cumulative visual impact and assessed as such.

5.2 In response, an illustrative map has been provided within Appendix 1 of this Technical Note which annotates a straight-line distance between the telecommunications masts granted within TP/ED/23/0694 and TP/ED/24/0437 of c. 500 metres. This is a distance which would not be considered to result in a cumulative impact as the separate masts would not be visually read as being in close proximity. In addition, there is urban development separating the two sites with several streets of residential dwellings and a row of commercial properties within the intermittent space. At street level, each mast would not be prominently visible to the other from the majority of vantages.

5.3 Each application must also be assessed on its own merits and within the context of the existing built environment. Whilst cognisance of future developments associated with granted planning permissions that have not yet been built can be useful, this should be balanced to avoid a first-come-first-served scenario. In most cases, it would not be proportionate to refuse an application on the basis of an existing permission which might never be enacted. Fundamentally, as noted in 5.2, in this particular case were both masts to be built, this is not considered to be cumulatively detrimental.   

5.4 The development plan, in particular NPF4, outlines that development proposals for digital infrastructure will be supported where “the visual and amenity impacts of the proposed development have been minimised through careful siting, design, height, materials and landscaping, taking into account cumulative impacts and relevant technical constraints”. The reports of handling for each application detail consideration of this policy provision in the context of each proposal. It is important to acknowledge that a level of visual/amenity impact is inevitable with this type of development which is recognised to be of national importance in delivering Scottish Government aspirations relative to digital infrastructure and connectivity.

5.5 A further concern was raised querying whether applicants are able to circumnavigate the assessment of cumulative effects by submitting consecutive applications to gain permission for several masts before commencing works on all granted masts at the same time.

5.6 In response, it is worth noting that the starting point for an assessment of a telecommunication mast is that it is considered Permitted Development under Class 67, and therefore the principle of the proposal is established and is not being assessed. The Prior Notification/Approval procedure is limited to an assessment of the siting and appearance of the proposal only, as noted in Section 2 of this Technical Note.

5.7 With reference to the assertion that both applications have been lodged by the same applicant, whilst the applicant for both TP/ED/23/0694 and TP/ED/24/0437 is listed as Cornerstone, this is a company who offer planning consultancy services to multiple telecoms companies. The submitted documentation suggests that the end user for each application are two separate providers with their own coverage requirements.

The following supporting documents are publicly available on the Council’s planning portal website and alludes to the operating companies as follows:

• TP/ED/23/0694 – PL21 COVERAGE PLOT MAPS
  Virgin Media/O2
• TP/ED/24/0437 – PL16 URBAN DENSIFICATION
  Vodafone

5.8 In both applications it was sufficiently demonstrated that there was a coverage need within each companies’ network coverage. It should also be noted that permission is granted on the basis of a proposal being acceptable, irrespective of who the applicant is as this is not a material planning consideration.

6.1 Concerns were raised regarding potential discrepancies and overlaps relating to the supporting statements outlining discounted sites within both the TP/ED/23/0694 and TP/ED/24/0437 applications. The following reference to discounted sites within each application were specifically highlighted and both have been plotted on the map within Appendix 1:

• TP/ED/23/0694 – North side of the Stockiemuir Road/Stockiemuir Avenue road junction
  “The grass verge also houses a major underground power line, so a site close to the trees on the grass verge would not be possible. “

• TP/ED/24/0437 – Glenbrae Vet, 49-53, Stockiemuir Avenue
  “This location is extremely exposed with direct views from the commercial building and no trees to assist. Due to the slight slope in terrain towards the commercial building, construction of the mast would be quite difficult. As additional elements would need to be brought in to make sure the structure is stable”.

6.2 In response, the following sets out the relevant policy considerations within National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2:

• NPF4 Policy 24 Digital Infrastructure
  Applications will be supported where “it has been demonstrated that, before erecting a new ground based mast, the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure, replacing an existing mast and/or site sharing has been explored”.
  
  
• LDP2 Policy 22 Digital Communications
  Applications “should set out the alternatives that have been considered and the reasons for the chosen solution” [...] “If proposing a new mast, it should be demonstrated that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting apparatus on existing buildings, masts or other structures, concealing or disguising equipment and site sharing”.

6.3 It is worth noting there is no requirement to demonstrate that the proposed site is the only possible location for the siting of a mast within a given cell area, but rather that LDP2 requires an applicant to demonstrate the process by which the location was decided. There is no such requirement within NPF4. There may be several suitable sites within a cell area, and if the proposed site is considered acceptable, then permission should be granted, regardless of whether there are suitable alternatives or not.

6.4 What is consistent within both NPF4 and LDP2 is the requirement to demonstrate that consideration has been given to siting new equipment on existing buildings, existing masts or other structures, or site sharing. In essence, this seeks to ensure that the applicant has explored opportunities to negate the need for a new mast, rather than a focus on alternative sites. In both applications, it was sufficiently demonstrated that a new mast was required, and that the proposed sites were acceptable.

6.5 Whilst it is appreciated that supporting statements submitted by applicants setting out discounted sites may appear to be in conflict between different applications, each identified site will only encompass the area required to install the equipment and is therefore a very narrow analysis and is site specific.

6.6 Fundamentally, the assessment considers the appropriateness of the proposed site, in accordance with NPF4 and LDP2 policies.

7.1 The Council is identified as the landowner for application TP/ED/24/0437. The planning service was asked what the procedure is when the Council is the landowner in providing consent for such works. Having consulted the Council’s Estates service, officers can advise that a contractor or telecommunications company looking to site a mast on Council owned land would require to contact the Estates service with regards to a Licence to Occupy or Lease to formalise their occupation. It is understood that statutory undertakers may have powers to install such infrastructure within the public footpath.

7.2 It is worth noting that the Scottish Government Planning Guidance: Digital Telecommunications outlines the role of planning authorities in determining applications and states that in facilitating sites, “planning authorities are often large landowners within the local area and may hold land in strategic locations which is suitable for new infrastructure. An understanding and mapping of where there are coverage shortfalls could help improve connectivity more efficiently. Local authorities’ networks and relationships with local business can also help to identify the need for improved connectivity and the availability of land and buildings”.