Appeal 6000232

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a 20m pole supporting 6no. antennas, the installation of 2no. equipment cabinets and 1no. meter cabinet, and ancillary works thereto at The [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 24/3658/PNT and the details submitted with it, including [name] 100 A, 200 A, 201 A, 300 A, 301 A; and the details of the external materials and colours specified on page 16 of the appellant’s ‘[name] document prepared by Cornerstone and Waldons.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, [name].3(4) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its siting and appearance, taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis.

The principle of development is established by the GPDO and the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO do not require regard to be had to the development plan. However, I have had regard to the policies of the Council’s Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

The Council has recently adopted the BLP. As a result, the BLP now forms part of the development plan. It has replaced Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (CS) and Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document (DMP), which are cited in the reason for refusal. The Council has advised in its Statement of Case at paragraph 5.20 which BLP policies are now relevant. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on the relevant policies of the BLP during the appeal process.

The main issue is the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the [name] (MOL) and if any harm would occur, whether this is outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking into account any suitable alternatives.

The appeal site is situated on a parcel of land in [site address] (the club). The club is accessed off Southover. The club comprises a club house, children’s play park, playing fields and tennis courts. Overall, the club is open in nature, providing relief to the more built-up suburban area surrounding the site. The openness of the site contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed pole would be taller than other structures in the immediate surrounding area. However, it would be set against a backdrop of dense tree coverage which would provide some screening, particularly when the trees are in full leaf.

The evidence before me indicates that the tallest tree in proximity to the appeal site is 13m in height. The proposed pole would be 20m. As such, a significant proportion of the pole would be viewed against the trees. Furthermore, the evidence outlines how the pole would be a dark green shade, therefore somewhat blending into the trees. The upper part of the pole would protrude above nearby trees and so would be visible against the sky. The appellant’s evidence outlines how the antenna needs to be sufficiently elevated to clear the tree line. Nonetheless, the upper part would be a light grey shade, assimilating with the backdrop of the cloudy sky. Furthermore, the light grey shade would also not be a prominent feature against the backdrop of the sky on a clear day.

The top part would be viewed alongside wider views of high fencing at the tennis courts beyond the appeal site, reducing any visual impact. Given the above factors, the proposed pole with antenna would not be an unduly prominent feature within the landscape.

Given the proposal’s location, on the periphery of a playing field and significantly set back from the road, views from Southover would be extremely limited. Furthermore, the entrance to the club, off Southover, benefits from dense vegetation and tree coverage, further minimising any views from Southover. Due to significant separation distances, views from the residential properties along Northiam and [name] would be limited. Furthermore, the views from these areas would be against the backdrop of dense tree coverage. Views from [address] would also be limited given the intervening dense tree coverage.

Although there would be medium to short term views from within the club grounds, as outlined previously I do not consider that the pole would be an unduly prominent feature. The club would continue to provide relief to its more built-up surroundings, notwithstanding the introduction of the proposed development, and would remain a largely open feature that positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area.

The number of associated ground-based cabinets would not be excessive and would be modest in scale. Their tight knit siting, functional design and appearance, together with their green finishes would ensure they would not be prominent features and would integrate well into their surroundings. I therefore find the siting and appearance of the proposed cabinets and equipment to be acceptable. It is noteworthy that the Council found similarly, outlining how naturally they would have a limited impact.

The Council raise concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on MOL. Policy G3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) affords MOL the same protection as Green Belt. However, as this is an appeal against prior approval, the principle of development is not for consideration and the question of whether the proposal represents inappropriate development in the MOL does not arise. I also do not consider that the scheme would result in urban sprawl. Although it is situated on playing fields, the playing fields are in a residential area.

My attention has been drawn to a recently dismissed appeal (APP/N5090/W/21/3273436). However, the two schemes are not directly comparable. The referenced appeal site was located on a grass verge off Southover, and therefore that mast would have been highly visible from it. Furthermore, the Inspector outlined how adjacent trees would only provide limited screening, being some distance away from the mast. Although that site was located close to the MOL, it was not in it, so it was not a consideration for the Inspector. I have therefore afforded reference to this scheme limited weight in favour of the Council’s position.

The Council stipulate that no details of the proposed materials have been provided. However, the appellant’s ‘[name] document was submitted with the application and sets out the materials which include galvanised steel. This material would be typical of such a structure and is considered acceptable.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the MOL. Thus, insofar as they are material considerations, the proposal would comply with Policies CDH01, ECC06 and TRC04 of the BLP. Collectively these policies, amongst other things, require development to respect local character and have no significant adverse effect on the space in which they are located. The proposal would also comply with Section 10 of the Framework, as a material consideration, which supports high quality communications infrastructure.

At paragraph 2.3 of the Council’s Statement of Case, it has also listed other BLP policies, outlining the new policies BLP policies which have replaced the old local plan policies listed in the decision notice. Policies HOU03, ECC05 and CDH04 of the BLP relate to residential conversions and redevelopment or larger homes, [name] and [name] and tall buildings. Whilst there would be no conflict with them, I do not find them to be relevant to the decision.

The Framework sets out that proposals for a new mast should be supported by the necessary evidence, including evidence that shows the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or structure has been explored. The evidence indicates that several alternative sites have been considered and discounted for specified reasons such that there are no suitable, available sites within the target coverage area. There is no substantive evidence that challenges the rationale for discounting the alternatives. As such, the appellant has met the requirements of the Framework in this regard.

Concerns have been raised about potential effects on health, including that of young children and babies. However, the appellant has provided a certificate to confirm that the proposal has been designed to comply with the guidelines published by the International Commission on [name] (ICNIRP). In these circumstances, the Framework advises that health safeguards are not something which a decision-maker should determine. No sufficiently authoritative evidence has been provided to indicate that the ICNIRP guidelines would not be complied with or that a departure from national policy would be justified.

Representations have referred to the opportunity of the appellant to use alternative sites to accommodate the appeal proposal. However, whilst I have taken account of these matters, I have found the siting and appearance of the proposed installation to be acceptable in relation to its effect on the character and appearance of the area. Thus, it is not necessary for me to consider the detailed merits of any potential alternative site or the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast, or other structure.

Interested parties have also questioned the need for the installation. However, the Framework is clear that advanced, high quality, telecommunications are essential for economic growth. It also sets out that competition between operators should not be prevented, nor should the need for the telecommunications system be questioned.

With regard to other concerns raised by interested parties, comments made in relation to wellbeing, environmental impacts including wildlife, impacts on highway and pedestrian safety, the history of a local football club and ability of local organisations to recruit do not change my findings in relation to the main issue. There is no compelling evidence before me to justify such matters, and in any case, my considerations are limited to the siting and appearance of the apparatus in accordance with the relevant legislation as set out in the procedural matters above. The effect on property values and private views has also been raised, however as private interests, these are not matters which would justify dismissing this appeal.

Interested parties have raised concerns that the application is similar to a previously refused application. I have however assessed the appeal on its own merits and outlined my reasoning above. Concerns are also raised regarding the lack of time to respond to notification letters and nearby residents not being informed of the proposal. The evidence before me however indicates that public consultation was carried out accordingly.

The Order does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions beyond the deemed conditions for development by electronic communications code operators contained within it. These specify that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details submitted with the application, begin within 5 years of the date of the approval and be removed as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for electronic communications purposes and the land restored to its condition before the development took place.

The Council has suggested conditions relating to a 3 year timescale for implementation and compliance with the submitted plans. However, the timescale for implementation under Class A, Part 16 of the GDPO is 5 years. The condition relating to the submitted plans would duplicate a condition already imposed by the GPDO. I have therefore not imposed the suggested conditions.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.