Appeal 6002356

The appeal is dismissed.

The provisions of the above legislation require the Council 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, having regard to the development plan and National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as material considerations.

The main issues are: • the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the Harrogate Conservation Area (HCA) and the Crimple Valley Special Landscape Area (CVSLA) through development in their settings; • the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 2 – [address], with regard to outlook; and • if any harm would occur, whether this is outweighed by the need for the proposal to be sited as proposed considering any suitable alternatives.

The appeal site comprises an area of grassed land associated with a junior football club. Beyond the playing pitches to the north and west the surrounding area includes a school, allotments and low-density housing. To the east is a railway line and industrial estate beyond, and to the south is mature landscaping. The open, verdant characteristics of the football pitches and landscaping and generally modest scale of the housing contributes positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Despite being reduced in height from a previous scheme, and even if it is the minimum operational height, at 25 metres to the top of the tower, the proposal would be taller than the nearby trees which are the existing tallest feature in the surrounding area. The design has changed from a lattice tower to a monopole column, yet the proposal would have relatively bulky antennas and dishes affixed to the headframe that would be exposed above the tree canopy.

The bulky headframe would be readily apparent as a prominent feature from numerous vantage points on the surrounding streets, public footpaths and from the grounds of the school to the north. In these views, the proposal would appear jarring against the trees which provide a soft backdrop and foreground. The prominence of the headframe would increase in visibility over wintertime due to leaf fall and appear as an imposing feature with its bulky and discordant antenna breaking the treeline.

The proposed cabinets would be largely screened by the palisade fence and views of the monopole column would be filtered by the surrounding trees that generally enclose the football pitches particularly to the east, south and west. Nevertheless, the bulky headframe projecting above the trees would not have a single slender compact vertical profile and so would not assimilate into the sky, even against grey overcast conditions that may well be typical. Instead, the proposal would be starkly incongruous, harmfully contrasting with the verdant qualities of the locality and the modest scale of the surrounding built form.

The visual intrusion of the proposal would be experienced by significant numbers of local residents as they move between residential areas and by the users of the junior football club. The presence of existing highways infrastructure would not mitigate the proposal’s effects and while its design is commonly seen across suburban environments, at the appeal site location the siting and appearance of the proposal would not integrate well with its immediate surroundings.

Near to the site is the HCA. Its significance is derived from the historic development of the spa town with cohesive townscape and verdant public open spaces. To the south its setting comprises the surrounding streetscape, representative of the suburban expansion of the town and includes the appeal site, which makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the HCA. As shown at viewpoints 1, 2 and 3 of the appellant’s visualisations, because of the intervening buildings and distance to the HCA, the significance of the conservation area would not be harmed by development outside it. The CVSLA is also proximate to the appeal site, however, for the same reasons as above, and as shown at viewpoint 7, the proposal would not be overtly discernible in long range views and so the proposal would not be a dominant feature.

Consequently, the proposal would be in accordance with Policies HP2 and T15 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2035 (2020) (HDLP) which include a requirement for proposals affecting the setting of a heritage asset to protect the features that contribute to its special interest and communications infrastructure to prevent harm to sensitive areas.

There is a critical need for the proposal to maintain coverage for residents and businesses as the scheme is a notice to quit project to replace an existing installation and the appeal site was chosen because it is technically suitable and is landowner supported. Nevertheless, it would have a clear visual impact, harmfully contrasting with the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would not respect the spatial qualities of the local area, including scale, appearance and visual relationships, nor would it respond positively to the built form within its context. It would therefore be contrary to the Framework which requires communications infrastructure to be sympathetically designed, camouflaged where appropriate and achieve well designed places.

Overall, I conclude that the siting and appearance of the proposal would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Insofar as they are a material consideration, the proposal would be in conflict with [name] HP3 and T15, which include a requirement for development to protect, enhance or reinforce local distinctiveness and communications infrastructure to avoid significant adverse impacts on character or appearance of the surrounding area.

The nearest properties to the appeal site are Nos 2 - 12. The existing outlook from the rear facing windows and gardens of these properties is relatively open with verdant qualities.

Despite the tree planting at the edge of the playing pitches that would filter views of the column, owing to the height and proximity of the proposal, the bulky headframe would be a dominant feature above the tree canopy at close range. In views from the nearest properties the proposal would have a looming presence, unreasonably diminishing the level of outlook that could be expected by the occupiers both within their properties and in their rear gardens, which I note are the only areas of private outdoor amenity space. The proposal would not result in a high standard of amenity as required by the Framework and would be particularly oppressive when viewed from Nos 10 and 12 directly facing the proposal. Although offset from the appeal site, the proximity of the proposal means that it would still be starkly visible to the occupiers of Nos 2 - 8.

To conclude, the siting and appearance of the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 2 – 12, with regard to outlook and would conflict with HDLP Policy HP4. This policy includes a requirement for development to avoid adverse impacts on amenity.

The Framework supports the development of high-quality reliable communications infrastructure which is essential for economic growth and social well-being. Nonetheless, it requires sites to be kept to a minimum and encourages the reuse and adaption of existing base stations. This approach is also reflected in HDLP Policy T15.

It is indicated that the primary cover area is constrained and there are said to be no existing telecommunications sites that could be shared, necessitating the need for a new mast. Smaller scale alternatives have been explored, however this would result in a proliferation of three to five street-works columns to ensure coverage and so it is suggested that a single monopole would be the least harmful solution. A large number of alternative sites have been considered, including stand alone and roof top installations, however the information provided is generally limited with a list of discounted sites and a brief explanation why they are unsuitable. The assessment is not clear and persuasive, thus the alternative sites evidence is not comprehensive or reliable.

A robust review of the availability of all possible realistic alternative sites for the appeal scheme has not been assessed and properly rejected, contrary to the provisions of Framework Section 10 and HLP Policy T15. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated with sufficient rigour that there are no other potential and viable alternative suitable sites available within the primary coverage area.

The proposal would improve network coverage including 5G rollout capability as well as emergency services network provision which are clear benefits of the proposal. The scheme would support high quality communications and digital connectivity and would therefore be in line with Government aspirations. Nevertheless, while acknowledging these benefits exist, they have effectively been recognised by the grant of permitted development rights in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). and do not carry additional weight when considering matters of siting and appearance as part of the prior approval process. Furthermore, given the limitations of the assessment of alternative sites, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the same benefits could not be provided on a less harmful alternative site.

Significant weight is afforded to the identified harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers arising from the siting and appearance of the proposed development. Accordingly, the harm is not outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed.

My attention has been drawn to other appeal decisions, but they have not been provided in evidence. As such there is no clear information to demonstrate whether the issues or the character of those sites are similar to this appeal. In any event, I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and come to my own view.

For the reasons given, and having regard to all relevant matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.