Appeal 6000266

The appeal is dismissed.

The provisions of the GPDO, under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, [name].3(4) requires the local planning authority, and therefore the Secretary of State, 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. I have therefore had regard to the policies of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only insofar as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

The appellant has submitted a revised Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan with the appeal. As advised by the Procedural Guide to Appeals – England, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what the Council determined the application upon, and on which interested parties’ views were sought. I cannot be certain that the views of interested parties would not be prejudiced if I were to consider the revised Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan as part of my determination of the appeal. As a result, my decision is based on the information submitted with the [name], upon which the Council determined the application, and I have not taken this additional information into account.

Following the submission of the appeal the Environment Agency updated the flood mapping dataset and the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (LP) was adopted in October 2025. The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the updated dataset and change in policy context and any comments received have been taken into consideration.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are: • the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance of the area, including trees and biodiversity • the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on flood risk; and • if any harm were to occur, whether this would be outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, considering any suitable alternatives.

The appeal site is situated on a grass verge within a car park next to a small shopping centre, a primary school, and small-scale residential development. The grounds of the primary school are designated as [name] of [name] (OOLTI) in the LP. The site forms part of the wider redevelopment of [address], which is identified in the LP for a mixed community, retail and local services, employment and residential uses, including affordable units and car parking.

The Telecommunication Equipment Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) advises that lattice towers, monopole masts, and associated equipment such as control cabinets are generally not acceptable unless it can be demonstrated that they comply with criteria including avoiding prominence in the street scene or from dwellings, and where possible, being screened by buildings or vegetation.

The car park itself is partly utilitarian in appearance, though small, landscaped areas help soften its character. Surrounding properties are generally two-storey dwellings, while the adjacent Sainsbury’s supermarket is larger but not disproportionately so compared to nearby development, including the school buildings. The Hampton Village Planning Guidance Draft Supplementary Planning Document (Village SPD) identifies the area as having a rural character with modestly scaled development interspersed with open spaces and landscaping, such as those around [address] and the school field. The appeal site, a grass verge with a group of trees and hedges situated centrally within a car park, contributes to softening the transition between residential and commercial development. In its current form, it makes a positive contribution to the character of the area.

The proposal seeks to install an approximate 20-metre-tall monopole and associated equipment cabinets on the grass verge within the car park. While streetlights and signage are present nearby, the monopole would be significantly taller and broader than surrounding street furniture, trees, and buildings, making it visible over a considerable distance. Although adjacent commercial buildings would provide some backdrop and limited screening, the installation would be set back sufficiently that these structures would not assimilate its scale. From other vantage points, including the OOLTI, nearby residential roads, and parts of [address], the monopole would remain prominent. While located outside the OOLTI, it would still be visible from within it and, due to its scale, would further urbanise views from it, detracting from the area’s rural character and would not retain or enhance landscape quality.

Despite its slimline design, the monopole would remain substantially taller and broader than any existing street furniture in the immediate vicinity and would be readily visible within the skyline. The proposed approximate 20-metre height of the monopole would still appear prominent and intrusive within the local context. Whilst the indicative images show that the monopole would be screened from viewpoints further afield, from nearby viewpoints, due to its scale, it would be prominent. The green-painted cabinets may help them blend with the grass verge, but this would not overcome the issue of over-concentration, resulting in street clutter.

The pole would also extend well above the surrounding tree canopy. While trees would partially screen the lower section; they would not obscure the full height, leaving the structure visually prominent in views from adjacent roads and the OOLTI.

Although the site is located in a mixed commercial and residential area, the grass verge and trees act as a transitional space between these uses. The proposed equipment would occupy a modest proportion of this area, and its utilitarian appearance would urbanise the verge and erode the softening effect it currently provides.

The proposal would consequently introduce a visually intrusive feature that contrasts sharply with the modest scale of the surrounding residential development. Furthermore, it would urbanise a parcel of land that currently contributes positively to softening the appearance of commercial development and the wider street scene.

The proximity of the proposed monopole and cabinets to nearby trees raises concerns. The monopole and cabinets would sit near to a tree canopy, placing the tree at risk during and after construction. Any loss or significant damage or pruning would remove important screening, increase visual intrusion, and further harm the area’s character. However, investigatory works were undertaken to determine the extent of the roots which determined the absence of roots 25-millimetre (mm) in diameter or larger within the top 600mm the soil. While the revised Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan was not accepted it is noted that the proposal would be outside of the Root Protection Area for the retained trees in both the original and revised Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan. Taking into consideration the location of the proposed installation in relation to nearby trees I am satisfied that the proposed equipment could be installed without causing significant harm to the root systems and canopy of nearby trees, subject to appropriate protections during construction. In my view, the potential risk to nearby trees, and to the biodiversity and habitats they support, has been adequately assessed.

The Framework states that equipment on new sites should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate. Although such monopoles are often found in urban locations, the proposal before me would not represent a design solution that is suitable for the site or mitigate its harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the siting and appearance of the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. In this instance, it is not that the installation would be visible, but that its siting and appearance would be harmful for the reasons given above. As such, the above conclusion does not necessarily conflict with the conclusions drawn in appeal reference: APP/L1765/W/18/3197522.

Insofar as they are relevant, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 27, 28, 29, 36, and 42 of the LP, which require developments to be of high quality, maintain and enhance local character, protect existing trees, incorporate them into development and minimise the visual impact of telecommunications proposals.

For the same reasons, the proposal would conflict with Policies G6 and G7 of the London Plan (2021), which seek to retain existing trees of value.

The proposal would, insofar as it is relevant, also be contrary to the advice in the SPD which seeks to ensure that masts are not prominent in the street scene and minimise the visual impact. It would also conflict with the aim of the Village SPD. Although these two documents are drafts and are only guidance, the advice within them remains relevant to schemes such as this.

The appellant identifies that the site is in [name] 1 and not in an area subject to a high risk of surface water flooding based on the most recent Government data. However, LP Policy 8 sets out that in [name] 1 FRA’s would be required where there is evidence of a risk from other sources of flooding including groundwater. The Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment ([name]) identifies that the site is in an area susceptible to groundwater flooding. As such, there is area specific flood risk data which provides substantive evidence that indicates the site may be at increased flood risk in the future. Footnote 63 of the Framework sets out the circumstances where an FRA would be required, and this includes land identified in a [name] as being at increased flood risk in future which, based on the evidence before me, includes the appeal site.

The Framework requires that development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Whilst the footprint of the development would be limited, it would be located on a grass verge in an area identified as susceptible to groundwater flooding. Given that the siting of the proposal is for consideration under the GPDO, and, in this instance, the siting is affected by flood risk, without a detailed FRA it is not possible to determine that the proposal would not increase flood risk elsewhere. This should be determined before a scheme is approved and as such, it would not be appropriate to determine this post decision via a conditioned FRA, if this appeal was allowed.

Consequently, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the siting of the proposal would be in a suitable location in relation to flood risk and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. The development would therefore conflict with the requirements of the Framework, where relevant, which seek to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.

Insofar as they are material considerations, the proposal would be contrary to the aims of Policy 8 of the LP which amongst other matters, seeks to ensure all developments will be made safe for their lifetime and clearly demonstrate that they avoid, minimise or reduce contributing to all sources of flooding, including groundwater.

I have found that the proposed development, through its siting and appearance, would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and flood risk for the reasons given above. The other options that might be available are therefore an important consideration.

The Framework supports the development of advanced, high-quality and reliable communications infrastructure as this is deemed to be essential for economic growth and social well-being. Nonetheless, it requires sites to be kept to a minimum and encourages the reuse and adaptation of existing base stations. Paragraph 122 of the Framework expects evidence to be submitted to justify all applications. For new mast or base stations this includes evidence that the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure has been explored.

The proposal is required to provide 5G coverage. It has been demonstrated that the site is within an area with demonstrable need for an additional installation in the vicinity to achieve a full and appropriate level of coverage. The coverage map has informed the appellant’s search area for the new equipment, and a sequential approach has been taken. In support of the application and now appeal, the appellant has undertaken an assessment of 32 sites, including the appeal site, although several of these were outside of the chosen area for coverage which was a reason used to discount them and this casts doubt on whether a sufficient number of alternative sites were explored within the search area.

The supporting information refers to several discounted alternative options for the proposed development. Reasons are provided as to why they have been discounted and these include the height of nearby trees and buildings, proximity to housing and other masts or located within an OOLTI. However, the reasons are brief and unsupported by evidence demonstrating why those sites would be more harmful than the appeal scheme or are not viable. Limited detail has been provided setting out why alternative sites would be more harmful to the siting and appearance of the area than the appeal site which itself appears to be located as close to residential dwellings in similar areas as other sites in the search area.

Sharing with other masts in the area was discounted but the reasoning does not demonstrate surety that sharing would not be feasible with mention that one mast would ‘appear to be an in-building solution specific to a supermarket’ which does not provide assurance or technical evidence that sharing could not take place. Furthermore, consideration has not been given to groundwater flooding which, taking into consideration the above concerns, is a matter that affects new masts and base stations in this search area in particular.

The cumulative economic and social benefits associated with the proposal would be significant. However, in the absence of clear and persuasive evidence as to why alternative sites have been discounted, I am unable to establish that the appeal scheme is the most suitable in its siting and appearance.

For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that, based on the evidence, the appeal scheme represents the least harmful option, nor that the requirements of Paragraph 122 of the Framework have been met.

The appellant has identified a group of applications determined by the Council and the number of alternative sites that were considered. Whilst most of these applications were refused, others were approved. I do not have the officer’s reports for these applications, so I do not know the reasoning why those applications were approved. If it was the case that the siting and appearance of those installations would not be harmful then the need to consider alternative sites would not be required. Furthermore, there may have been substantive evidence to discount the alternative sites which was not the case in this instance. Without such information, limited comparisons can be drawn between this scheme and those that were approved.

Whilst appeals for similar schemes were allowed in Winchester, Sheffield and at [address] amongst others each case must be determined on its own merits, and the site circumstances are particular to each case. Of importance is that none of these sites are located close to the appeal site and thus it has not been substantively evidenced that the sites are comparable. It is also noted that the monopole in the Winchester and [address] appeals were shorter than what is proposed. While the scheme in Sheffield was a similar height to what is proposed the weight attributed to the material considerations of a case are a matter of planning judgement for the decision maker to determine.

Although the proposal would deliver significant benefits to mobile telecommunications in the area, it would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and I am unable to conclude with certainty, that the proposal would not result in harm to flood risk. Furthermore, there is no clear and persuasive evidence to demonstrate that alternative sites could not deliver the same benefits whilst having a less harmful effect. Therefore, notwithstanding the need to upgrade the network and assist the government’s aspirations along with the associated benefits, these do not outweigh the harm that would arise from the siting and appearance of the proposed installation and the possibility that more appropriate sites exist.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.