Appeal 6000550

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the header is copied from the application form. It includes repetition and it is not fully consistent with the details as shown on the submitted drawings. The appellant’s appeal statement at paragraph 1.3 sets out a different description but this again does not correspond with the appeal plans, particularly in terms of the number of antennas to be fixed to the pole and the number of cabinets that are proposed. The Council’s decision notice gives the following description of development:- Installation of 20m high phase 7.2 streetworks pole supporting 2No. dishes, 6no. antennas and GPS node, 3no. equipment cabinets and ancillary equipment.

The Council has based its decision on this revised description as it more closely reflects the details on the drawings. I have taken the same approach with this appeal but I note the plans show a wraparound cabinet at the base of the pole as well as the 3 equipment cabinets as referred to. No injustice would be caused to any party by taking this approach.

In light of the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO, I have assessed the development solely on the basis of its siting and appearance. The provisions do not require consideration of the development plan, although I am referred to the Wyre Forest District Local Plan April 2022 (the LP). The policies of the LP are material considerations as far as they relate to issues of siting and design. Also, I have had regard to the relevant parts of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The main issues are the effect of the siting and appearance of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) the setting of local historical buildings. If the proposal would cause harm in any of these respects, there is an additional issue as to whether the need for the installation as proposed would outweigh the harm caused when considering any alternative locations.

The development would be on pavement to the side of [site address] , near to its junction with [address]. It would be next to a car park that serves a fairly modest retail store but the area in general is residential in nature. Properties near to the appeal site includes [address] that dates from the 19th century as well as typical 20th century houses. [address] slopes downwards from the level of the site towards Springfield Park where there is a pool that contains a tall brick chimney. The land on the opposite side of [site address] rises up steeply with a line of trees and houses facing the highway on higher land.

The development would be in an exposed position on the outside of a curve in [site address] . The cabinets would be low and so they would only be seen when fairly near to the appeal site. In contrast, the street pole would be tall and it would be seen from a significant distance away in both directions along [site address] . It would also be seen from [address], from the park and from nearby properties including those on higher land to the south. The proposed grey colouring would not meaningfully reduce the visibility of the street pole. As such, it would have an obvious visual effect on a fairly wide area.

The pole would appear unusual as there are no other similar features in the locality. Also, it would appear incongruous as it would be significantly taller than nearby buildings. There are already vertical features along [site address] but the pole would be well above the height of the nearby lampposts and trees. Also, the antennas at the top would mean that the widest part of the structure would be at the most noticeable level. [address] and the park, the lower parts of the pole will be seen against the rising land to the south. However, the pole would be so tall that from most directions the antennas would be seen against the sky. By reason of its exposed location and its height, the pole would appear as an unusually prominent feature, starkly at odds with the street scene and the wider locality. The harmful effects by reason of incongruity and dominance would not be overcome simply by virtue of the site being near to a commercial property.

Tall telecommunication masts and monopoles are often seen alongside roads in urban areas. However, it does not follow that any installation within a town would have an acceptable effect on the visual qualities and character of an area. In this case, the height of the pole would stand out as being highly unusual to the locality, notwithstanding that the site lies within an urban area. The appellant suggests the pole would be at the minimum height necessary to provide the best network coverage. Even so, it would not integrate appropriately to the street scene or locality as it would tower above existing buildings and features. The incorporation of non-functional fins for aesthetic purposes would not address the harmful visual effects of the pole.

For these reasons, I conclude the siting and appearance of the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to the provisions of paragraph 120 of the Framework as the proposed equipment would not be sympathetically designed having regard to its context and it would not be camouflaged. It would also not accord with LP policy SD.36 as the siting and appearance of the street pole would not minimise its impact on the character and visual amenity of the area. Setting of local historical buildings.

[address] is not a listed building but it is included on the Council’s list of local historic properties and features. It is noted as having 19th century origins and its age and architecture are unusual within the local context of mainly 20th century properties. Therefore, [address] has a level of historic significance that warrants it being treated as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The development would be seen alongside and in limited views to the front of [address] and so it would affect the setting of the property. Despite their close relationship, the installation would only form a minor obstruction to views of the house as the cabinets would be low and the pole is a fairly narrow feature towards the ground. [address] is already seen alongside trees and modern features such as lampposts and signage associated with the adjacent retail store. Given this context, the proposal would not meaningfully detract from views of [address] and the manner in which it is currently appreciated from public vantage points. Despite the height of the pole, the development would not harm the setting nor the significance of [address].

The Springfield Park chimney is not a statutory listed building and it is not on the Council’s list of local buildings of historic interest. However, it reflects the town’s industrial heritage and it is an interesting architectural feature. It is reasonable to treat the chimney as a NDHA given this local historic significance.

To a limited degree the development would affect the setting of the chimney as the views from higher land to the south of [site address] would include the street pole and the chimney. However, the main nearby views of the chimney from the side of the pool at the park would be unaltered and so the proposal would not harm its setting nor its significance.

Therefore, I conclude the siting and appearance of the development would have an acceptable effect on locally significant historic buildings. In these regards, the proposal would accord with LP policy SD.36 that seeks to minimise the impact of telecommunication developments on the setting of heritage assets. Need for the proposal and alternative sites.

Until recently, network coverage in the area surrounding the appeal site was provided by telecommunications equipment on a 12 storey block of flats called [address] on [address]. This provided coverage for a wide area as it was a tall building on higher land. However, [address] is being demolished and the site will be redeveloped. To maintain network coverage within the area there is a clear need to replace the equipment that was on [address].

The proposed development would help address the shortcomings in network coverage and allow an enhancement in terms of 5G telecommunication services. As such, the proposal would provide significant social and economic benefits. It is noteworthy that the Framework states that planning decisions should support the expansion of electronic communication networks.

At figure 11 of their appeal statement, the appellant has provided information on a defined search area for a new telecommunications installation. This allows for the gaps in coverage following the removal of the [address] equipment as well as the efficient operation of the network. Also, information is provided on locations considered as alternatives to the appeal site and that have been discounted. I find no reason to dispute the appellant’s claim that there is no suitable building or existing structure within the search area where the proposed equipment could be installed. The Council suggest the roof of the [name] could be utilised as it already contains equipment but this lies outside the defined search zone.

The alternative sites considered include locations at [name], St George’s Park and [address] North that lie outside the defined search area. It would seem reasonable to discount these as potential sites for the proposal. Also, I understand the reasons for ruling out the installation of equipment at [name] and at a site on [address] that is being developed as a school as there would be insufficient space for an installation.

Baxter Park is within the search zone and it has been discounted by the appellant as it lies within a high amenity area . However, there is little evidence before me to indicate how an installation at this site would affect the appearance and character of the locality. As such, I am uncertain that the location of the appeal development would be preferable in terms of the effects on local character and visual qualities.

Also, I saw a temporary telecommunications mast that has been provided on land near to [address] to maintain a degree of network coverage. The appellant explains that this is not permanent and it provides reduced coverage and operational capability. However, no convincing explanation has been provided as why the land on which the temporary installation is positioned could not be used in the long term to accommodate a permanent telecommunications development that would provide sufficient coverage. This land lies within the search area very near to the location of the previous equipment that has now been removed. The fact that it is being used for a temporary installation indicates the site has the potential to accommodate equipment that would address gaps in the network coverage and to enhance services. [name] of the Issues.

To summarise, there is a clear need for new telecommunications equipment to be provided in order to maintain and enhance network coverage in the area. The proposal would help address this need but the siting and appearance of the pole would have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

There is no realistic potential to provide new equipment on existing buildings or structures. Also, the appellant’s search has appropriately discounted several alternative locations for a new installation. However, I am unconvinced from the information provided that the appeal site represents the only or the best location for a development to address the demands and needs for a telecommunications’ service in the area. Therefore, I find the advantages of the proposal and other arguments advanced in support of the scheme do not outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the first main issue. I am not bound to follow the appeal decisions referred to by the appellant and that allow telecommunication developments as they relate to proposals that are not directly comparable to the current appeal scheme.

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