Appeal 6001161

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 the installation of a telecommunications base station comprising a 18m monopole supporting 9 no. antennas and 2 no. dishes with wraparound cabinet at base together with 5 no. cabinets and ancillary development thereto at land at [address], Barnet, London [postcode] in accordance with the application 25/1368/PNT and the details submitted with it including plan nos: 1706912_BNT289_34565_EN0955_M003-[name] 002 Site Location Plan, 1706912_BNT289_34565_EN0955_M003-[name] 100 Existing Site Plan, 1706912_BNT289_34565_EN0955_M003-[name] 150 Existing Site Elevation, 1706912_BNT289_34565_EN0955_M003-[name] 215 Max Configuration Site Plan, 1706912_BNT289_34565_EN0955_M003-[name] 1706912 265 Max Configuration Site Elevation, Tree Protection Plan dated 12/12/2024, 1706912 Tree Survey by Trinkle & Pearce Landscapes Ltd dated December 2024.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (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 representation 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 to be had to the development plan. I have therefore had regard to the policies of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only insofar as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

In support of the appeal, further alternative sites were assessed by the appellant (Nos D17-D27) and reasons why they were discounted included with the Appeal Statement. As this information was available to all parties and they have had the opportunity to comment on the additional sites I do not consider that any parties would be prejudiced by my taking it into account and therefore have considered the proposal on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding 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 appeal site is a wide grass verge located on the eastern side of [address] adjoining a large roundabout, which contains numerous mature trees and planting. The grass verge is located to the front of blocks of flats which are three storeys high. On the opposite side of [address] there are further blocks of flats of similar design which face onto a large grass verge. The open grassed areas and trees on the roundabout gives the area a pleasant, verdant appearance.

The proposed mast and 5 associated cabinets would be located within the grass verge in proximity to the pavement. There are streetlamps and signage within the verge and on the roundabout. The mast would be 18m in height, coloured grey and would have 9 antennas and two transmission dishes. There is an existing tree located between the appeal site and the road which is approximately 7.5m in height. The highest trees in the roundabout are approximately 12m in height whilst the streetlamps approximately 8.2m high. Therefore, the proposed mast would extend significantly above the height of the surrounding vertical features.

Following the roundabout, [address] curves which means that longer distance views of the proposal would be interrupted by the intervening built form. The roundabout trees would also offer a degree of screening of the mast when approaching from [address] and [address]. However, owing to the open character of the appeal site and its immediate surroundings, the proposed mast would nevertheless appear as an intrusive and discordant feature. It would be visibly prominent to both pedestrians and motorists approaching and exiting the roundabout from [address] and [name] as well as to occupants of the neighbouring flats.

The appellant puts forward that the proposed mast utilises the slimmest possible design to enable all the multi technologies to be supported and the proposed height is necessary in order to provide coverage to the target area and transmission links to the network. However, the utilitarian appearance would be a conspicuous feature within the open green space, with no screening to reduce its visual impact. While there are some streetlights nearby, these have slim profiles and are simple in design. In contrast, the proposal would be much taller, thicker in profile and have a more cluttered appearance due to the components which would be accommodated. Despite the limited floorspace of the proposed cabinets, the location of five together would result in a cluttered appearance within the open green space. Overall, the proposed development would therefore appear as intrusive features within this open space and thereby harm the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

The Framework supports the provision of high quality and reliable communications, which it states are essential for economic growth and social well-being. 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.

The supporting information submitted as part of the application states that an existing base station was located at [address], however it was decommissioned following a notice to quit the site. Therefore, the proposed development is required to restore connectivity to the area, provide 4G and 5G services and accommodate increased demand for the Three and EE networks. The appellant has submitted coverage plots, and it has been demonstrated that the site is within an area with demonstrable need for such an installation in the vicinity to achieve a full and appropriate level of coverage.

The appellant has confirmed that there are no opportunities for mast sharing within the search area. A total of 15 alternative locations (D2-D16) were considered by the appellant as set out in the Site-Specific Supplementary Information document which was submitted as part of the planning application. The site selection process took into account a number of factors including topography, access to power sources, reasonable access for construction and maintenance and ability to connect with the wider network. In order to support the appeal, this alternative site assessment was revisited and 11 further sites considered (D17 to D27). This explained the operational and planning reasons for discounting the alternative sites.

The majority of alternative sites considered (D4, D5, D6, D7, D11, D12, D14, D15, D16, D17, D18 and D19) were rejected amongst other reasons due to interference between the base station or other structures such as trees and buildings. Five of the sites (D3, D22, D23, D24, and D27) were discounted due to having a greater impact on residential amenity than the appeal site. Sites were rejected as the location would necessitate larger mast structures (D9, D10, D13, D25 and D26). Two sites (D20 and D21) were not considered of suitable roof design to support the proposed infrastructure. Sites were also rejected on account of proximity to the Monken Hadley Conservation Area (D2) and as it would require a central site which would not be possible due to the playing pitches (D8). I note that ten of these sites were also just outside of the search area, which limits their suitability as genuine alternatives.

Whilst the appellant has not submitted photomontages or visual mapping of alternative sites, the justification for rejecting these alternative sites in my view is reasonable and logical. Therefore, I am satisfied that there are no other mast sharing opportunities, suitable buildings or other structures within the required search area that would be capable of accommodating the proposed installation. Although the proposal would be visibly prominent, there would be some screening from longer distance views by the tree coverage on the roundabout and intervening buildings. This would mean that its visual impact would be within a restricted area. It would also have less impact on residential amenity than other alternative locations due to the gap between dwellings and the proposed structures. No further alternative sites which have not been considered by the appellant have been suggested by either the Council or third parties.

I therefore conclude that the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Whilst alternative sites may exist, the appeal proposal is preferable for the reasons outlined above. Therefore, any identified harm is outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking into account the suitable alternatives.

Concerns have been raised by third parties about potential effects on health, particularly the proposed monopole’s proximity to residential properties. 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.

A Tree Survey1 was submitted with the application which included a tree protection plan and on this basis the Council’s Planning Manager (Trees) did not object to the proposed development.

Although the Council has suggested a condition in relation to external surfaces, the GPDO 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.

For the reasons given above, having had regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval be granted.