Appeal 6002297

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 siting and appearance of a 20m telecommunications mast painted Black (RAL

at [name] of [address], [address], Bermondsey Village, London [postcode] in accordance with the application 25/AP/2753 and the details submitted with it including plan nos 100D, 201D and 301D.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO), under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, [name].3 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. There is no requirement to have regard to the development plan as there would be for any development requiring planning permission. 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.

I have used the site address and description of the proposed development as given on the application form, in the banner heading and decision above. The appeal was made by Shared Access Ltd in partnership with Vodafone UK Ltd. However, the applicant was identified on the application form as Shared Access Ltd, so I have used that name in the banner heading above. I am satisfied that the appeal was submitted by the party entitled to do so.

The main issue is the effect of the siting of the proposed telecommunications mast on safety and ease of movement for pedestrians.

The proposed mast would be within a paved area at the junction of [address] and [site address] . [address] is a main urban route, while [site address] is quieter, but both are within a busy mixed-use area, near the major railway station at [name]. The appeal site is in front of a four-storey block of flats, and there are a variety of hotel, residential and commercial uses nearby. Further down [site address] is a public open space known as [name], which includes a children’s play area, and there is another public open space at [name], across [address].

This section of pavement varies considerably in width, opening out into a roughly triangular paved area at its widest point, but becoming narrower where it turns into [site address] . Within the wider pavement there is a large London Plane Tree, as well as several items of street furniture, including a lamppost, drinking fountain, pole-mounted CCTV camera, road signs, and an information board. In front of the flats are several large planters, which separate the area under a projecting first floor walkway from the rest of the pavement. There is tactile paving and a dropped kerb on both sides of [site address] , near the junction, to facilitate crossing by pedestrians with mobility or visual impairments.

[address] is a busy urban route, with bus lanes and cycle facilities. However, there is no clear need for pedestrians to cross the main road at this point, since there is a pedestrian crossing very close by, opposite the entrance to [name]. Therefore, most pavement users are likely to be travelling along the length of [address], across [site address] , or turning in or out of [site address] . That was the general pattern at the time of my site visit, when there was a steady flow of pedestrians travelling individually and in groups, some with small children in pushchairs. On the whole, they were either proceeding along [address], crossing at the tactile paving, or walking closer to the frontage of the flats and following the corner around into [site address] . While that is only a snapshot in time, those routes are encouraged by the position of the Plane tree and the existing street furniture, which is generally either close to the kerb or close to the flats, with a clear area in between.

In contrast to the previous application, the proposed mast would not be sited within the clear area in the middle of the pavement. Instead, it would be close to the [address] kerb, on a similar alignment to the existing lamppost. It would be a substantial new feature, even allowing for the lack of equipment cabins at the base, so it would add to the overall level of street clutter. But that is mitigated by the proposed siting being well integrated with the existing vertical features, with the mast proposed to stand about halfway between the lamppost and CCTV pole.

Since the mast would be behind a line defined by those two existing features, it would not intrude any further into the approach to and from the tactile paved crossing. Nor would it have any effect on the narrower pavement around the corner into [site address] . The majority of the pavement could still be readily negotiated, and the most easily navigable route would remain the same. As such, the siting would not prevent pedestrians from passing along the footway or accessing premises adjoining the footway, as required by the GPDO1.

The proposed siting avoids obstructing the clear approach towards the tactile paving and dropped kerbs. The Officer Report acknowledges that a footway width exceeding 2.4m would be retained, in line with the [name] (2020). If follows that it would also exceed the 2000mm minimum recommended width in the Department for [name] guidance. In fact, the clear area would comfortably exceed that figure. The Inclusive Mobility guidance takes into account a variety of accessibility considerations, including the needs of wheelchair or mobility scooter users, with or without companions, and vision impaired people using a variety of aids. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, even allowing for the busy nature of the route, the siting has adequate regard to the needs of disabled people and the [name] guidance, as required in the GPDO.

While the proposal would increase street clutter to some extent, in these particular circumstances that would not be prejudicial to maintenance of a public realm which encourages walking and is accessible and easy to navigate for all users. The proposed siting has adequate regard to relevant requirements in Policies P13 and P51 of the Southwark Plan 2022 and Policy D8 of the London Plan 2021, to the extent that they are relevant to the proposed development.

Policies in the Framework for promoting sustainable transport include that applications for development should prioritise pedestrian movements, address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility and avoid unnecessary street clutter. The Framework is also supportive of the expansion of electronic communications networks. The application is supported by evidence of the need for additional telecommunications equipment in this location, as described further below. As such, the proposal should not be treated as ‘unnecessary’ street clutter, when considered in the context of the permitted development rights granted in the GPDO and the Framework read as a whole.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the siting of the proposed telecommunications mast would be acceptable in relation to safety and ease of movement for pedestrians.

The appeal site is within the [address] Conservation Area (CA). There are also several [name] listed buildings along [address], the closest of which include the 19th century former [name] opposite, which is now a hotel, a statue on the corner of [address], and structures in and around [name]. [address] frontage opposite the appeal site is within the adjacent [name]. However, [name] itself is further away, beyond extensive 21st century redevelopment of land between [name] and [address], without line of sight or any other direct relationship with the appeal site. Non-designated heritage assets close to the appeal site include [name] and a public house on the corner of [address] and [address]. 1 GPDO Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, paragraph A.2 (1)(d)

The significance of the [address] CA is derived amongst other things from the architectural and historic interest of the remaining 19th century buildings, and distinctive views and vistas along the linear streetscape. Those include views towards the narrow end elevation of [name], and the triangular space and statue at the junction with [address]. Those features are also relevant to the significance of the [name], where it includes part of the [address] corridor, and to the setting of the listed buildings along [address]. Street trees make a positive contribution to the significance of the CAs, as does the quieter, more enclosed green space at [name].

The application included heritage evidence proportionate to the nature of the proposal and, having sought internal design and conservation advice, the Council did not allege any harm to the character and appearance of the [address] CA or the significance of any other relevant heritage assets. The proposed mast would be sited in front of the modern [site address] flats, which are just outside the CA and make no positive contribution to its significance. It would be closely related to existing street furniture, as previously described, and painted black like those other vertical features. Those aspects of the proposed siting and appearance would effectively mitigate the level of intrusion into important views within the [address] streetscape. Views from [name] are filtered by the trees around the edge of the open space and the mast would not be harmfully intrusive from that perspective.

Some pruning of the large [name] would be required. However, the Built Heritage Statement refers to evidence from planning history records that trees within the public realm in the locality are already subject to active management. At the time of my site visit, the tree was not in leaf and there were some visible indicators of pruning having been undertaken in the past. Its outer branches were encroaching on the existing streetlamp, suggesting that ongoing management of the outward spread of the crown is likely to be necessary even in the absence of the proposed mast. Since the mast would be sited further from the tree, the proposed siting does not appear to necessitate more drastic pruning in future. On that basis, the positive contribution which the tree makes to the character and appearance of the CA would not be undermined.

Given the proposed siting, there is no substantive evidence that any trenches or foundations would be required in close proximity to the base of the tree, or that its health would otherwise be compromised. The Officer Report also confirms that the applicant would need to engage directly with the Transport for London (TfL) Street Tree Team, to seek necessary permissions for tree works.

For the above reasons, the siting and appearance of the mast would not prevent appreciation of features which contribute to the significance of the [address] CA or other relevant heritage assets. In my judgement, the character and appearance of the [address] CA would be preserved.

Justification has been provided for installation of a new mast, to address network congestion within a specific, physically constrained, search area, around the corner of [name]. Opportunities to upgrade or share existing base stations or other telecommunications structures in the vicinity have been reviewed and discounted for technical reasons. There is no substantive evidence that merger between Vodafone and another network operator changes the need for the installation or introduces new options for sharing of existing installations. Acquisition of a suitable rooftop location was ruled out due to the long site acquisition process, which would be incompatible with the short term need to address degraded performance within this busy urban area. No substantive evidence has been submitted that a rooftop option is available in the short term, or that it could feasibly address the identified need within an acceptable timescale.

The application documents satisfactorily address the requirement in paragraph 122c of the Framework that, where a new mast or base station is proposed, evidence is provided that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure. Having concluded that the siting now proposed would not be harmful, there is no need for any alternative sites, including any suggested by TfL or other parties, to be considered further.

The mast would be directly in front of the [site address] flats and visible from windows on their [address] elevation, but it would be set back at the outer edge of the pavement. While it would be taller than the other street furniture, it would have a relatively slimline form and it would be seen in the context of an outlook which already takes in several very large buildings, the [name] and other vertical features. The Council did not allege any harm to living conditions for occupiers of the adjacent flats and based on the evidence before me I have no reason to reach a different view.

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). It is supported by confirmation in writing that the installation is designed to be in full compliance with those guidelines as expressed in 2020. No sufficiently authoritative evidence has been provided to indicate that the relevant, up to date ICNIRP guidelines would not be complied with or that a departure from national policy would be justified. In these circumstances, the Framework advises that health safeguards are not something which a decision-maker should determine.

The reference in the Built Heritage Statement to disuse of the children’s playground is a quote from the Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal, which dates back to 2003. The playground was well equipped and in active use at the time of my site visit, and I have noted that interested parties mention a nearby nursery which makes use of it. The mast may be visible from the playground, particularly when the trees in the churchyard are not in leaf, but it would be far enough away not to be excessively dominant or overbearing. Any traffic generated would be of a very short-term nature, relating to construction or maintenance, and would be subject to any necessary consents from TfL and/or the Highways Authority. There is no substantive evidence that the development would prevent the playground, nursery or the means of access to them from providing a safe or suitable environment for children.

I have noted that another proposal was refused at [address], but that is a different location and there is no information before me to indicate to what extent the circumstances were similar. [address] Hub proposal mentioned in representations is described as being roughly 600m away, so it would not have any direct bearing on pedestrian accessibility in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. No further details of that proposal are before me, and it is outside the scope of this appeal. This proposal is not for a [name] and there is no reason to think that the proposed mast would be linked to antisocial behaviour or crime.

The drawings before me are labelled with the relevant street names and clearly identify the location of both the proposed installation and existing street features, so the siting and appearance of the proposal can be understood. Evidence has been provided by the Council that required public consultation processes were undertaken before the application was determined. [name] have noted that TfL and [name] objected to a previous proposal, that was for a different siting. There is no similar objection from either consultee to this proposal.

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.

The above conditions do not restrict excavation near existing trees, so the condition requested by the Council’s Urban Forester cannot be imposed. However, for the reasons given above, there is no substantive evidence that the [name] would come to harm, and the need for relevant consents to be obtained from [address] Tree Team offers an additional safeguard in that respect.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.