Appeal 6000469

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 installation of one Valmont tri-pod (measuring 6.3m) supporting 2no. antennas on the northwest corner of the rooftop, one Valmont roofpod (measuring 6.3m) supporting 4no. antennas on the south-east corner of the rooftop for a total of 6no. antennas attached to bespoke steelwork (19.03m AGL), 4no. 600mm transmission dishes and ancillary development thereto at [site address] in accordance with the application 24/5431/PNT and the details submitted with it.

I have used the description of development given in the Council’s Decision Notice and the appeal form in the banner heading above and in my formal decision, as it removes superfluous text from that set out in the application form.

The provisions of 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 be had to the development plan. I have had regard to the policies of the Barnet Local Plan 2021- 2036 (BLP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only insofar as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

The Decision Notice refers to policies from the Barnet Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (September 2012) and the Barnet Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document (September 2012). These have been superseded by policies from the BLP, which was adopted in March 2025. The main parties to this appeal were provided with the opportunity to comment on the BLP in the context of this planning appeal.

Appeal decisions must be based on the policies from the development plan prevailing at the time of determination. Policies referred to in the Decision Notice, relating to the application subject to this appeal, are no longer relevant and are disregarded. The Council has indicated the particular policies of relevance to this appeal.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area 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 [site address] (SC) is a modern 2 and 3-storey building with a plantroom projecting above the main flat roof. The SC is located on the periphery of the wider [site address] campus, which, due to its size, range of buildings and large areas of surface car parking, is a dominant feature in the locality. To the south is [address] [name] and a predominantly residential area consisting of mainly 2 and 3-storey properties.

Except for an external access ladder, the plantroom is generally clear of visual clutter and appears as a simple, functional element of the SC. The proposed development would see the installation of 6 antennas attached to bespoke steelwork and 4 transmission dishes and ancillary development across the roof of the plantroom. In particular, the antennas and their supporting structures, rising to around 6.3m above the plantroom’s roof, would create a utilitarian addition to the SC that would protrude into the skyline.

The appellant explains that the height of the antennas is the lowest possible to meet technical requirements and a centrally positioned stub tower was also considered, which would have been higher and with a greater visual impact.

When viewed from [address], within the context of the rear entrance to the campus, adjoining main hospital building with flues, service yards including a tall cylinder structure, and a surface car park, the proposed installation would not be prominent, overbearing or result in an unacceptable level of visual clutter. However, due to the proximity of the SC to the houses on [address], which back onto the hospital site, and changes to the ground levels, its visual intrusion would be noticeably greater from these properties.

I therefore find that the proposed development would cause moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area. There would be conflict with [name] CDH01 and TRC04, which are material considerations insofar as they require, amongst other things, all new development to be of a high architectural and urban design quality, and there is no significant adverse impact on the visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

Paragraph 119 of the Framework states that planning policies and decisions should support the expansion of the electronic communications network, including next generation mobile technology such as 5G.

Claims by the appellant that the proposed installation is required to replace the coverage that has been lost as a result of the decommissioning of the [address] Fields base station, have not been challenged by the Council. I understand that it would also provide new 5G services as well as improved 2G and 4G services.

Supporting information on the site selection process identified a number of possible alternative sites, which would have consisted of either a streetworks, rooftop or greenfield installation. These were investigated and subsequently discounted for a variety of reasons, including location within or adjacent to a conservation area, impact upon underground services, incompatibility with an existing roof design, ownership constraints and lack of technical suitability. The Council has not questioned the findings of the site selection process or put forward any further possible alternative sites.

Based on all the evidence before me, including my observations, the appellant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development is needed at this location to replace coverage as well as provide new and improved services, and that there is not a more suitable site for the required facility.

Therefore, whilst the proposed installation would cause some harm to the character and appearance of the area, it has been demonstrated that there is an identified need for the proposed development within this area and that there are not more suitable alternative sites available. These factors outweigh the moderate harm I have identified, and I find the siting and appearance of the proposed development to be acceptable.

The Council highlights that the wider hospital campus is in proximity to the [address] Conservation Area (WSCA), and a number of locally listed buildings, but it does not refer to these within its appraisal of the proposed development. Moreover, they are not included in the Council’s decision notice or appeal questionnaire. Nevertheless, based on my knowledge of the WSCA, my own observations, and given the separation distance involved and intervening development, the proposed development would not unacceptably affect the setting of this heritage asset.

Reference has been made to various social and economic benefits, but these have not been taken into account in considering the matters of siting and appearance.

Concerns have been raised about potential effects on health, including its positioning in relation to a hospital. 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.

I note that representations from interested parties have raised a range of issues, including but not limited to: impact on wildlife, the climate and carbon targets, and structural matters. However, in the absence of strong evidence before me to support such concerns, these are not substantive reasons for withholding the grant of prior approval.

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.

In addition to an approved plans condition, the Council has suggested a condition requiring that the materials (and colour) should match those used in the surrounding street furniture. The material given in the submitted details is steel grey to enable the installation to blend into the background of the sky. The proposed installation is remote from street furniture, such as lighting columns, and a matching colour finish is not a determinative factor in this case.

[name] have found that the siting and appearance of the proposed development would cause moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area, this would be outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking into account alternative locations investigated. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.