Appeal 6000727

The appeal is allowed, and 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 the siting and appearance of 25.0m lattice tower, supporting 12no. antennas, 1no. 0.3m dish and 1no. 0.6m dish on support poles fixed to tower legs, 7no. equipment cabinets and 2.1m high palisade fence surrounding tower base and ancillary development at [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/2025/0000779/PAEC, and the plans submitted with it including drawing numbers 100 Rev 1A, 201 Rev 1B, and 301 Rev 1B.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the Council’s decision notice as it is clearer and removes unnecessary words from the description provided in the application form.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order), 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 provisions of the Order do not require regard to be had to the development plan. I have had regard to the policies of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only insofar as they are material considerations relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted additional information relating to the existing lattice tower at 4 [site address] and the potential for mast sharing. Although this information is new and was not before the Council when it made its decision it would not fundamentally alter the proposal. Furthermore, the Council has had an opportunity to comment on the additional information and no party would be prejudiced were I to take it into account in making my decision.

The main parties do not dispute that the appeal scheme meets the requirements of Class A, Part 16, Schedule 2 of the Order such that it would constitute permitted development, subject to the condition that prior approval must be sought in relation to its siting and appearance.

The main issues are the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the height and massing of the structure and the effect on the street scene and views from [name]; 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 comprises part of the hard surfaced yard to [site address] [site address] , which is currently operating as a storage facility with an office building, storage containers, and open storage. The yard is enclosed in green palisade fencing. There are trees and a grass verge outside the fencing and a pavement between the verge and the road.

[site address] is the end unit on [site address] and is next to [name] nature reserve which can be accessed at the end of the road. [name], near to the appeal site, is an area of footpaths and well-established trees. The end of the road is closed off with dark coloured palisade fencing with a pedestrian access point to the marsh. There is also a “gateway” sign.

[site address] and the appeal site are, in my judgement, part of the industrial estate and clearly have an industrial appearance with the existing use and fencing. There is physical distinction between the industrial estate and [name] defined by the fence boundary and the trees within the marsh.

The Framework states that the number of masts and sites for telecommunication installations should be kept to a minimum and that the use of existing masts, buildings and other structures should be encouraged. Where new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.

The Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England (2022) supports the government’s objective of providing improved communications infrastructure and coverage. It also encourages operators to mitigate visual impacts. The appellant has also drawn my attention to numerous other documents that promote improved mobile technology and 5G.

Policy C2 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan, adopted 2017, (the LP) requires regard to be given to the impact of the development on its surroundings, with particular regard to visual amenity, character, and appearance of the area, amongst other matters.

At 25 metres and as a lattice tower, with 12 antennas and 2 dishes at the top, the appeal proposal would be a significant structure. Even if I accept the appellant’s argument that the structure is the lowest it can be to provide for the operational requirements, it would be taller than any of the existing buildings, street furniture, or trees. The mast and its “crown” of antenna and dishes would be prominent in the street scene when viewed from [site address] . It would also be seen in glimpsed views from [name] through gaps in the existing landscaping.

The proposed cabinets would be read alongside the existing buildings and would not be visually harmful. As the existing yard to the storage business is already enclosed with palisade fencing the proposed fencing around the mast and cabinets would be in keeping with the industrial area. Nevertheless, the mast and the “crown” at the top would mean that the proposal would stand out as an incongruous feature in the street scene and be visually harmful to the character of the area.

The existing lattice mast near to 4 [site address] would be retained and, although the appellant advises that the existing monopole mast at [address] would be removed, I have no means to secure this. Consequently, there are cumulative effects to consider and the proposal would add to the proliferation of telecoms structures within the area. This would be especially noticeable from the end of [site address] where both the existing lattice mast and the proposed mast would be seen in the same views.

I acknowledge that the appeal proposal would be a sufficient distance from any residential properties so as to not be visually intrusive for the occupants of the houses. Furthermore, I accept that the proposal would be next to industrial uses. However, it would be prominent when viewed from [site address] and, to a lesser extent, from [name].

The siting and appearance of the proposal, due to its scale and position would, therefore, not assimilate well into its surroundings and would add to the proliferation of telecoms masts. For these reasons, the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the height and massing of the structure and the effect on the street scene and views from [name]. This would be contrary to Policies C2 and DE1 of the LP which, taken together, seek to ensure that telecommunications development has regard to the visual amenity, character, or appearance of the surrounding area, and ensure that all development is of high quality design, respecting and enhancing the surroundings.

It would also be contrary to the advice in the Framework which seeks to ensure that new telecoms equipment is sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.

[name] have no means to secure the removal of the existing monopole at [address], I also have no compelling evidence that the mast would not be removed and I have given weight to the appellant’s evidence relating to the notice to quit. Furthermore, Policy C2 of the LP requires telecommunications equipment, which has become obsolete or that is no longer in use, to be removed as soon as practicable and the site restored to its former condition.

The removal of the existing mast would result in a gap in the mobile and network services provided within this part of Coventry. This would result in the reduction in services which would be contrary to the Framework’s aim of supporting the expansion of electronic communications networks and reduce the benefits of reliable communications infrastructure to economic growth and social well-being.

The appellant’s initial alternative site information assessed ten sites and provided sufficient justification for discounting each of them. I have no compelling evidence of any other available or suitable sites. The additional information provided as part of the appeal has sought to justify that the networks would not benefit from mast sharing with the existing mast at 4 [site address] . Although the existing mast is close to and visible from the appeal site, it lies within a different cell area and the coverage from 4 [site address] is different to the coverage for the appeal proposal. Mast sharing at 4 [site address] would not replace the loss of coverage that would result from the removal of the mast at [address].

Although part of the appeal proposal might be capable of being accommodated on the existing structure, due to the resultant gap in the coverage, a new mast would still be required at the appeal site. Moreover, I have no compelling evidence that such mast sharing would substantially reduce the overall scale of the “crown” of the proposal. As a further matter, the appeal proposal would enable an increase in the coverage and the provision of improved 5G services, which would comply with the advice in the Framework.

Based on the evidence before me, including the additional information provided as part of the appeal, I am satisfied that there are no other site sharing opportunities, suitable buildings or other structures within the required cell area that would be capable of, or be more appropriate for, accommodating the proposed installation.

The lack of alternative options to deliver the replacement and improved coverage and capacity within the required area is a consideration which weighs strongly in favour of the development. Consequently, the harm to the character and appearance of the area is outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking into account suitable alternatives.

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, notwithstanding the comments raised by interested parties regarding health concerns, 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.

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.

I have, therefore, not imposed any conditions as those within the Order are deemed to be applied.

The siting and appearance of the mast would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, in the absence of a more suitable alternative site within the required area, the harm resulting from this would be outweighed by the social and economic benefits provided by the replacement and improved telecommunications coverage and capacity. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval is granted.