Appeal 6001127

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 a 22.5m galvanised steel monopole mast, 12 No. antennas, 4 No. dishes, 7 No. cabinets and all ancillary development at [site address] in accordance with the application 25/01054/PRIOR and the details submitted with it.

An application for costs was made by Cornerstone against South Cambridgeshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

As this is an application for prior approval, the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) require the local planning authority to assess the proposal solely in respect of its siting and appearance, having regard to any representations received. I have determined this appeal on the same basis.

The principle of the development is established by the GPDO, which does not require consideration of the development plan, and the fact that the appeal site lies within the Green Belt does not alter this position. I have taken the development plan into account only insofar as its policies are relevant to the assessment of siting and appearance.

The main issues in this appear are: • the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance of the area and use of the site for sports; 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 a field upon which I observed grass and scrubland vegetation. It is set back from [address] and enclosed on two sides by mature trees, including some subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). The surrounding area has a mixed outer urban character, predominantly residential but with varied building styles, uses and heights such that no single pattern prevails. The former Anglia Ruskin University fields, together with the [address] playing field to the south, form a substantial area of open land and a clear break in the wider suburban townscape.

The proposed pole and antennas would be tall with an aesthetically functional appearance. Its presence would therefore encroach marginally into the openness of the field and add an unnatural feature. Nevertheless, the installation would not appear unduly prominent. It would sit within a context that already includes vertical features such as streetlights, traffic signals, signage and rugby goal posts. The established treeline along [address] and [site address] would provide effective screening in public views, even outside full leaf cover. While the upper parts of the mast would be visible, views would largely be from more distant positions. From the north and west, where tree cover is less dense, the installation would be more noticeable. Nonetheless, given existing utilitarian features and the available natural screening, the resulting visual harm to the streetscape would be limited.

Views from residential properties would be few and largely distant, including from The Brambles to the west. The separation between the installation and nearby dwellings, combined with existing vegetation and the contextual influence of surrounding development, means that the presence of proposed equipment would not have an unacceptable or overbearing effect on their living conditions. Hence, although it may be visible to some residents, I have taken account of this as part of the limited harm to the character and appearance of the area already identified.

Concerns have been raised regarding potential constraints on future sports use. The information before me suggests the site has not been used for formal sport for a considerable period and determining its lawful use falls outside this appeal. Nevertheless, based on the position of the remaining rugby goal posts, the proposed mast in the corner of the wider site would be unlikely to impede future sports activity, including rugby. Similar installations are commonly found at outdoor sports facilities so there is little basis to suppose they are inherently incompatible. The information provided does not convincingly demonstrate why the siting in this instance would pose a specific hindrance that would undermine the functionality of the remainder of the field should it be used for sporting activities. Concerns relating to the safety of fencing around ground based equipment would be addressed under more specific legislation.

Whilst the development plan is not determinative in the context of prior approval, the limited harm identified in respect of siting and appearance results in some conflict with [name]/2 and HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, which seek high quality design that responds positively to local character. There is also some conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) paragraphs 135 and 139, which require development to enhance the overall quality of an area.

Overall, I find that the siting and appearance of the installation would cause limited harm to the character and appearance of the area. This reflects the mitigating influence of existing development, other vertical infrastructure, established vegetation and the spatial separation between the proposal and neighbouring properties.

The Framework supports the delivery of advanced, high‐quality and reliable communications infrastructure, recognising that such networks are essential for economic growth and social well‐being. Paragraph 119 states that planning policies and decisions should facilitate the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next‐generation mobile technology such as 5G and full‐fibre broadband. The proposal would provide improved 4G and 5G network coverage in an area where a deficiency in service has been identified. The coverage plot map submitted with the application demonstrates that the appeal site lies centrally within an area currently experiencing inadequate 4G and 5G provision. This is not challenged by the Council

The Framework also requires that applications for new masts or base stations include evidence that the potential for installing equipment on existing buildings, masts or other structures has been fully explored. The application included a list of discounted alternative sites, with basic information provided for each. The appeal was supported by a more detailed alternative site assessment, in which a considerable number of other locations were discounted. The Council has challenged the methodology of this assessment, asserting that it considers matters beyond siting and appearance such as operational requirements and is therefore vague.

However, the Council’s position on this matter is flawed. While some locations may be preferable in terms of character and appearance, there is little value in assessing such sites if they cannot meet the operational requirements necessary to deliver high‐quality communications infrastructure.

Interested parties contend that the proposed search area for alternative sites is inadequate, yet they have not provided alternative evidence to justify a different search area. It has also been suggested that an approved mast under Ref: 22/02512/PRIOR could be shared. However, this structure is located approximately 1.3 km from the appeal site, which is a significant distance and lies outside the identified search area. Neither is there substantive evidence to undermine the appellants submission that the mast location subject to 21/04169/PRIOR is discounted due to conflict with underground services.

While the installation of the mast elsewhere on highway land has been suggested as an alternative, no specific site is refered to that could be assessed. Identifying alternatives would likely require detailed subsurface surveys of these sites. In this context I am satisfied that the assumptions regarding the presence of subsurface services represent a reasonable approach to assessing alternative highway locations.

The Framework does not require developers to select the best feasible siting and so, as I have found limited harm would occur as a result of the proposal, I am satisfied that a proportionate assessment of alternative other sites has been undertaken by the appellant.

Based on the evidence before me, the appellant’s site‐selection process is robust, and the Council and interested parties have not provided substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise. I therefore see no reason to dispute that the appeal site has been identified following an appropriate assessment of alternatives.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal complies with the Framework in respect of the consideration of alternative sites, including the requirement to explore the potential for installing equipment on existing buildings, masts or other structures. The lack of more suitable alternative sites capable of delivering the improved coverage and capacity required in this area is a factor that weighs substantially in favour of the proposal.

Concerns have been raised regarding potential effects on health. However, the appellant has provided a declaration confirming 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 a matter for the decision-maker to determine. No sufficiently authoritative evidence has been submitted to indicate that the ICNIRP guidelines would not be met, or that a departure from national policy would be justified.

The appeal site is located in proximity to trees protected by a TPO. I have not been presented with technical evidence to indicate that the proposal would lie within the root protection area (RPA) of any protected tree. Rather, the appellant has confirmed that the installation is located outside of all RPAs. I therefore identify no adverse impact on trees and am satisfied that the installation can be undertaken without encroaching into the existing tree line.

No evidence has been provided regarding consultation by the appellant with the landowner, understood to be an education provider. Paragraph 122 of the Framework states that proposals near a school or college should include the outcome of such consultation. The installation would be located on land used by the institution for outdoor sport but is physically separated from its main academic buildings. In this case, given that the representations received include comments made by the party concerned, I find that any harm arising from the absence of consultation is limited.

Notwithstanding the practical matters associated with accessing the site, particularly those connected to weather conditions affecting the use of vehicles, I am satisfied that access could be achieved during both the construction and operational phases. The potential need to obtain access over third‐party land is a legal matter that falls outside the parameters of this appeal.

The GPDO provides no specific authority for imposing additional conditions beyond the deemed conditions that apply to development carried out by electronic communications code operators. These deemed conditions require that the development be undertaken in accordance with the details submitted with the application, that it commences within five years of the date of approval, and that it be removed as soon as reasonably practicable once it is no longer required for electronic communications purposes, with the land then restored to its former

The siting and appearance of the proposal would cause limited harm to the character and appearance of the area and is unlikely to unduly impede future sports activity. However, given the need for the installation and the absence of any more suitable alternative sites within the necessary search area, that harm would be outweighed by the benefits arising from improved telecommunications coverage and capacity. Accordingly, the proposal would accord with the Framework when read as a whole, particularly in respect of supporting high‐quality communications infrastructure.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should succeed and that prior approval should be granted.