Appeal 6000678

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development has been taken from the application form, with matters that are not acts of development removed.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO 2015), 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.

Although the ground based equipment may benefit from permitted development rights, as the equipment is shown on the proposed plans, I have considered such as part of the proposal in reaching my decision.

The main issues are the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the living conditions of occupiers of nearby residential properties, in regard to outlook; and, • if any harm would occur, whether this is outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking account of any suitable alternatives.

The appeal site is part of the footway along a busy main road (A456), with an open grassed area behind it, located to the side of a large building within an industrial estate. Although, continuing along [site address] to one side and on the opposite side of the road there are residential properties. There are a number of large street trees along the road which provide an attractive green aspect to this principal route into Kidderminster. While there are some tall lampposts further along and on the opposite side of the road, there are none immediately adjacent to the appeal site. Therefore, the existing lampposts are not overly dominant features within the context of this part of [site address] .

Along the immediate stretch of footway either side of the appeal site there are no boundary treatments or street furniture, as a result of such and the open grassed area behind it, this part of the footway and its surroundings have a more open, uncluttered, suburban feel.

The proposed installation will be a tall utilitarian structure, taller than existing street trees, and nearby lampposts and buildings. Even though the installation would be a monopole, it would be of a different design and less slender than the slimline lampposts nearby and include several associated cabinets. This would add street clutter to an otherwise open part of the footway. Also, while there are mature trees nearby along [site address] and the proposed monopole and cabinets are to be a grey colour, such matters would not discernibly screen nor reduce the prominence of the proposed installation, particularly from more immediate viewpoints and on approach toward Kidderminster. As a result, despite the nearby trade park, the proposal would appear as an overly prominent, anomalous feature within the street scene, harmful to the generally spacious, open character and appearance of the surrounding area.

In view of the above, the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As far as this would be determinative on this matter, it would conflict with Policy SP.36 of the Wyre Forest District Local Plan (April 2022) which, amongst other matters, requires the siting and appearance of proposed apparatus and associated structures to minimise the impact on visual amenity, character landscape and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposed installation would not be immediately in front of a residential property, although due to its tall, utilitarian design and prominent position within the surrounding open context, it would appear as an unduly dominant and anomalous feature within the surrounding area. Consequently, even though telecommunication installations are often found in urban areas, the proposal in this open and uncluttered location, would adversely affect the outlook of occupiers of nearby residential properties.

Therefore, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby residential properties in regard to outlook. This is contrary to Policy SP.36 of the LP, which requires consideration of the impact of the development on its surroundings.

It is not disputed that there is a need for a replacement telecommunication installation, to provide continued and enhanced network coverage in the cell area once the existing rooftop installation is lost. The proposal would support two mobile operators and is of a height needed to ensure appropriate radio signal and coverage, including 4G and 5G capacity. Also, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and other government documents support advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure. With the Framework setting out that this is essential for economic growth and social well-being.

The desktop survey did not identify any possible mast or site sharing options for the proposed replacement installation. As a result, a number of alternative new base station sites were considered. The appellant discounted these for various reasons, including the proximity to existing and future schools and residential properties, lack of screening and impact on the character or recreation value of an area, traffic and highway safety impacts, and insufficient footpath width to accommodate the proposal. However, I have found the appeal site itself is not well screened, and that the proposal would harmfully affect the character of the area and outlook from nearby residential properties.

The appellant sets out that it is not possible to locate the installation within the industrial estate nearby, due to the unsuitability of buildings to support apparatus, narrow estate road widths, loading bay areas and a nearby recently approved housing estate. However, no substantive details of the locations considered within the estate have been provided to demonstrate such unsuitability.

Additionally, the appeal site would be toward the edge of the designated search area (DSA) for the installation and would be the furthest away from the existing roof top installation compared to other locations considered by the appellant. Therefore, it is not clear why this location would provide the optimal location for the replacement installation, particularly when compared to the other sites discounted, that are similarly stated to be in prominently visible, open locations, not far away from residential properties, as per my findings on the appeal proposal.

Even if the sites suggested by the Council would not be suitable alternatives for the proposed installation, based on the evidence before me, I am not convinced that the appeal proposal would be sited so as to minimise its impact while providing the most operationally effective option within the DSA for the proposed replacement installation. Also, based on the evidence provided, I am not persuaded that all alternative sites within the DSA have been comprehensively considered.

In view of the above, it has not been demonstrated that the harm caused to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and outlook from nearby residential properties would be outweighed by the need for the installation to be located as proposed, taking into account of any suitable alternatives.

Other appeal decisions1 have been brought to my attention about telecommunication apparatus allowed elsewhere. Although, I do not have substantive details of these, on reading the appeal decisions, they are for different 1 [name]/U5360/W/21/3280131 at area of footpath, [address], Hackney, London [postcode] and APP/U2750/W/24/3342345 at Land at In Moor (Dis) Quarry, In Moor Lane, Middlesmoor, [name] [postcode] . telecommunication apparatus in different locations, including in different local authority areas. Therefore, while the Inspectors in such cases recognised the importance of mobile connectivity, they are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal as they do not share the same location and site context. Consequently, I have considered the appeal proposal on its individual merits.

The proposal would provide social and economic benefits, including maintained and upgraded network connectivity and capacity for the local community, businesses, and visitors to the area, including support for essential services. However, in regard to prior approvals, the GDPO 2015 is clear that the only considerations should be the siting and appearance of the proposal. Consequently, whilst wider benefits exist, they have effectively been recognised by the grant of permission under Article 3(1) of this Order.

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