Appeal 6001389

The appeal is dismissed.

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 representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis.

It is sought to erect a 20m monopole with associated ancillary development. The provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO 2015 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 in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

The application form does not include the description of the proposed development. In the banner heading, I have used the wording of the proposed development from the Council’s decision notice. This is the same as that entered on the appeal form by the appellant. However, I have noted that the plans submitted and appellant’s statement set out that the existing 15m monopole at the site would be retained, with the upper section housing the telecommunications equipment removed and the conversion of the existing monopole into a floodlight column. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans on which the Council determined the original proposal.

The appellant has submitted amended plans for this appeal. These plans have been submitted to respond to one of the reasons given for refusal. Crucially, they were not submitted to the Council at the application stage. I cannot be assured that this submission has been reviewed by all parties with an interest in this appeal. This is tantamount to the submission of new information. The Planning Inspectorate Appeals’ Procedure Guide makes it clear in chapter 16 that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the Council. I have not therefore considered this new information in this appeal as it would prejudice the Council, its decision and any interested parties.

The proposed development would be situated within the Watling Estate Conservation Area (CA). I am therefore vigilant of my duty imposed under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The main issues are: • the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA; 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 alternative sites.

The appeal site is located within the grounds of the [site address] (BBOLC), adjacent to fencing separating two large and well-maintained football pitches. Whilst the modern leisure centre building is substantial in size, and there are floodlights and fencing present, the grounds retain an open and spacious character due to the abundance of playing pitches and sports courts. Two storey residential properties overlook the BBOLC on all sides, with a significant swathe of landscaping and tree planting on the boundaries of the leisure facility.

The locality displays a coherent pattern of development, with consistent building lines and attractive, terraced and semi-detached properties typically comprising two storeys in the garden city suburb style, all of which contribute positively to its established character. Mature street tree planting and generous soft landscaping areas provide a verdant and pleasant environment, further adding to the visual interest of the area. Moreover, the significance and special interest of the CA, when taken as a whole, is drawn, in-part, from its range of characterful historic and socially significant buildings, the formality of its layout, scale and its sylvan influences.

Further, as referenced in the Watling Estate Conservation Area Character [name] (2007) (WACA) all the parks, playing fields and open spaces in the CA are key features and the relationship between open spaces and buildings formed an important part of [name] planning. The views afforded both from and to the parks, the way buildings bound the open spaces and the link created by the open space across the area all help to define the spacious character of the estate.

At my site visit, I observed that the existing monopole is visible in key views of the site between gaps in the surrounding built form, including at [site address] , [address], [address] and [address]. The proposal would exceed the height of the existing monopole at the site by a further 5m to around 20m, and would be more substantial in bulk and girth where 12 antennas are proposed in dual stack formation, in addition to associated equipment (GPS, ERS and RRH).

I find that the scale and height of the proposal, combined with the cluster of antenna and associated equipment to the upper section of the monopole, would appear excessive and visually intrusive in this location. Whilst the adjacent leisure centre building is of a significant height and modern in construction, the proposed monopole would substantially exceed the roofline height of this building, in addition to surrounding nearby properties. This would create a domineering and unsympathetic feature within the CA.

Furthermore, the retention of the existing monopole structure sited close to the proposal would further exacerbate the harmful impact of the development due to additional and intrusive visual clutter within its spacious and low-scale setting. The proposal would appear visually overbearing to the residents of properties directly overlooking the site, particularly during winter months when the landscaped area to the boundary of the BBOLC provides reduced screening, thereby appearing as a discordant feature which is at odds with the scale of development within the locality and the CA.

The appellant sets out that the proposal has been carefully designed to mitigate visual impacts from within the BBOLC grounds by utilising a slimline monopole, with ground mounted cabinets finished in a muted green to assimilate with the surrounding grass and sports facilities; adding that the proposed ground-based mast would be sited next to vertical infrastructure, including established trees and floodlighting. In relation to the monopole, the WACA sets out that modern street lighting tends to blend into the backdrop and is neutral in its impact, and the appellant sets out that the grey, manufacturing colour of the monopole would seamlessly integrate with the existing structures in the area, reducing its prominence.

However, I find that the proposed monopole would be substantial in size and bulk and of a height which significantly exceeds the existing natural and manmade infrastructure found in the local environment. The use of a manufacturing colour finish would not mitigate against the harmful visual impact of the development.

Turning to the ground mounted cabinets and equipment, I find that, whilst numerous, they would be of a size and scale which can assimilate within their context and would be largely screened by fencing adjacent to the proposal and existing vegetation. Therefore, the cabinets alone would preserve the character or appearance of the CA.

In conclusion, the siting and appearance of the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and the significance of the CA. Insofar as it is a material consideration, the proposal would be contrary to Policy TRC04 of The Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) (BLP) which requires proposals for the installation of telecommunications equipment to be permitted where there is no significant adverse effect on the space in which they are located; the significance of heritage assets is preserved or enhanced; the heights and usage of surrounding buildings have been taken into account; alongside no significant adverse impact on the visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

Although not determinative, I also find conflict with Policy CDH01 of the BLP in so far as it seeks to promote high quality design which responds sensitively to the distinctive local character and design, scale, massing and height of the existing context. In so far as it is a material consideration, the proposal is also contrary to Policy CDH08 of the BLP which, amongst other matters, requires that special regards will be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of conservation areas. As required by Policy CDH08, where less than substantial harm has been found, the harm has been weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposed equipment would provide 5G coverage and the appellant sets out that the site lies within an area of coverage deficiency which the proposal seeks to fill. Whilst the need for the proposal is not disputed, I have not been provided a defined area of search for the new equipment. Justification is provided that the site utilises an existing area characterised by telecommunications infrastructure and thereby minimises the number of new telecommunications sites, showing sensitivity towards the residential context and the CA. Further, it is claimed that the proposed monopole needs to be sited as close as possible to the existing mast to replicate the same level of cell coverage and to enhance that provided in the area.

I have found that the proposed development, through its siting and appearance, would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and the CA for the reasons given. The other options that might be available are therefore an important consideration. In addition, paragraph 122 of the Framework requires that, for a new mast, evidence is provided that has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure. In the absence of clear and cogent evidence as to why alternative sites have not been considered or discounted for the proposal, I am unable to establish that the appeal scheme is the most suitable in its siting and appearance.

For the reasons given above I am not satisfied that, based on the evidence, the appeal scheme represents the least harmful option, nor that the requirements of paragraph 122 of the Framework have been met. The sequential approach to site selection has not been followed with sufficient rigour to enable me to ascertain that there are no realistic opportunities to erect an installation in a different location where its siting and appearance would be less harmful. Insofar as it is a material consideration, the proposal would be contrary to Policy TRC04 of the BLP which, amongst other matters, requires proposals for the installation of telecommunications equipment to be permitted where the possibility of sharing facilities and erecting antennae on existing buildings or other structures has been fully explored and where practical becomes the preferred location.

In summary, the development proposed would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area including the CA, and less harmful alternative sites have not been fully explored. For these reasons I find the siting and appearance of the proposed development to be unacceptable.

For the reasons given above, I find that the monopole would cause less than substantial harm to the CA. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The Framework also advises that advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. Decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks. I recognise the importance of good, fast, reliable and cost-effective communications and the economic, social, health, environmental and education public benefits that this mast would provide. These benefits are covered in detail within the evidence before me. Moreover, there is no basis to question the appellant’s contention that the equipment is necessary to provide appropriate coverage. The cited benefits however do not outweigh the harm that would be caused by the proposal to the character or appearance of the CA.

The additional policies referenced by the appellant from the BLP and The London Plan (2021), alongside other infrastructure delivery guidance, strategies and reports; in addition to a letter from the [name] of State for Digital and Broadband (2019), and any support offered by it to the installation of the proposal have been taken into account, but do not lead me to a different overall

[name] have had regard to the appellant’s reference to communication with the Council, this has not led me to alternative conclusion on the main issues of this appeal.

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