1. The purpose of this technical note is to provide an update to Members on this application for a new 17.5 metre high telecommunications mast with associated equipment on Angus Avenue, Bishopbriggs.
2. Application TP/ED/21/0208 was a prior approval application which proposes to use the permitted development rights set out in Class 67 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended). This class allows new ground based masts of up to 30 metres to be built without full planning permission. However it does require the developer to make a submission to the Planning Authority to decide whether prior approval is required and if so whether it is granted or not. In the event a decision is not given with 56 days then the developer can proceed with their plans as submitted. Full details of the process is given in Section 69 of Circular 2/2015 – Non Domestic Permitted Development Rights.
3. This application was validated on 15/03/2021 and neighbours notified on the same day. No objections were received in relation to the application, however the Planning Authority had concerns regarding the scale and siting of the mast which was considered to be overly dominant in the street scene. The application was refused for that reason and the decision finalised and decision notice created on 03/05/2021. However due to an administrative delay it was not issued to the applicant until 10/05/2021.
4. The applicant has been in contact to advise that although the decision notice is dated within 56 days of validation it was not received by them within 56 days (10/05/2021 is 57 days from validation) and as such they believe the development can proceed as submitted. Members may have received communication from the Roads Service advising of the various procedures being put in place to commence with the works.
5. The wording in the relevant circular suggests the applicant’s interpretation is correct and states ’The planning authority has 56 days beginning with the date of receipt of a valid application to give the developer their decision as to whether their prior approval is required, and, where it is required, to give the developer a decision as to whether or not it is granted.’ There are a number of appeal decisions from England, which relate to the issue of decisions on Prior Approval applications and the timeframes for making those. They do all conclude that the decision must actually be received by the applicant within the relevant timeframe.
6. In conclusion although the application is recorded as being refused on the Council’s Planning Portal and was reported as that in the relevant Delegated Decisions Report the developer can proceed with the development due that decision being issued to them in 57 days rather than the required 56.
7. To avoid a similar situation arising in future the internal procedure for dealing with these applications has been changed. Rather than the decision being finalised by the Planning Team Leader and then issued by the Validation Assistants it is issued directly by the Planning Team Leader on conclusion of the application. This ensures that the date of decision and date of this being issued to the applicant are the same.