Appeal 6002520

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 25m lattice mast, hosting 6no. antennas and 2no. dish antennas, with 3no. equipment cabinets and 1no meter cabinet all within a fenced compound. All other associated ancillary apparatus and permitted development thereto at Land at [address], [site address] , Hellesdon, Drayton, Norfolk [postcode] E619670 N312206 in accordance with the application 2025/1922 and the plans submitted to it including: Site location plan 101 1A, Proposed Site Plan 201 1B, [name] 301 1B, ACS Consulting Arboricultural Impact Assessment November 2025 and [name]/Tree Protection ARB/5413/Y/200.

A number of the documents submitted by the appellant refer to the address as [address] and [address]. However, the correct address is Carrowbreck. I have therefore corrected the typographical error in the address of my banner heading.

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(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.

Part 16 of the Order establishes that the proposal is permitted development and therefore it is accepted in principle. Furthermore, there is no requirement to have regard to the development plan as there would be for development requiring planning permission. Nevertheless, Policy 2 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan 2024 (LP) and Policies GC4, EN1 and EN2 of the Broadland Development Management DPD 2015 (DPD) are material considerations only in so far as they relate to issues of siting and appearance. Similarly, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is also a material consideration and includes a section on supporting high quality communications.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted an Arboricultural Assessment and [name]/Tree Protection plan in response to the Council’s concern in respect of trees. The Council has had opportunity to comment on this document in terms of its response to the appeal. I cannot be certain that this document has been subject to wider publicity. However, this is a technical document which does not alter the location or nature of the scheme which was subject to wider publicity. As such I shall accept the arboricultural information for the purposes of this appeal and do not consider that any interested party would be prejudiced by my acceptance of this technical evidence.

The main issues are: i) the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the River Wensum River Valley Landscape Character Area, and the living conditions of the residents of neighbouring properties, with regard to outlook; and ii) whether any harm caused would be outweighed by any benefits of the proposal, including the need to site the installation in the location proposed having regard to the potentially available or alternative sites.

The appeal site is located in an area currently laid to grass adjacent to a three-storey building and 2no single storey buildings that form part of the [address] training centre. A substantial row of trees, and mature landscaping, forms the boundary with the adjacent field immediately to the north of the proposed mast. Trees are also present to the western boundary of the training centre, and a dense group of tall trees are present to the east of the proposed mast in the intervening area between the cluster of two-storey residential properties located on [site address] .

The appeal site lies within the River Wensum River Valley Landscape Character Area. This is an area characterised by extensive blocks of woodland that blanket the river sides throughout the area to create distinct wooded skyline views.

The mast would be of an open lattice tower with a relatively slim headframe. In views from within the grounds of the training centre, including for users of the training facility, the development would be prominent due to the height and width of the lattice tower.

A mix of tree species are present proximate to the appeal site. Even when not in leaf, the trees would provide some mitigation to soften the appearance of the lower sections of the mast from wider views, including the nearest residential dwellings.

Notwithstanding the above, at 25m in height the proposed mast would project above the height of the existing trees and would be visible from wider views within the river valley. Amongst others, the appeal proposal would be visible from [address] and [address]. [address] is a main distributor road that is long and straight and suburban in character, containing numerous vertical elements in the form of street furniture and mature trees. By reason of its vertical scale the proposed mast would be prominent in the skyline, and would result in some visual intrusion, particularly when viewed from the north. This would be at odds with the development plan which seek to ensure the sensitive location of development involving tall structures (including telecommunication masts) in relation to prominent skyline locations both within the area, and adjacent to character areas.

The site is not within a Conservation Area and trees proximate to the appeal site are not formally protected by way of a Tree Preservation Order. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment and associated Arboriculture Plan demonstrate that the impacts on the root protection area (RPA) of 1no black pine (T1) would be slight and that the fencing surrounding the compound would infringe upon the RPA of the same tree and a [name] (T4). Both trees have been assessed as being high/good quality and would be likely to be tolerant of root pruning. In regard to the fencing this would require a post hole that will be hand dug. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the siting of the proposed installation would not materially undermine the health of nearby trees such that it would diminish the positive contribution the trees make to the verdant character and appearance of the locality.

[name] am satisfied that the proposal would not result in harm to nearby trees, for the reasons stated, the proposed installation would be prominent and would cause a degree of harm to the character and appearance of the area, particularly the River Wensum River Valley Landscape Character Area. Insofar as they are a material consideration, this draws the proposal into conflict with Policies EN2 and GC4 of the DPD. These seek, amongst other things, to protect the character and visual amenity of places.

A cluster of residential dwellings lie to the east of the proposed mast on [site address] , located within a woodland setting. A single storey building also sits between the proposal and the closest properties and there are residential properties located on the western side of [address] proximate to the appeal site.

It is likely that the mast would be visible from the windows of nearby residential properties which face towards it. Whilst there is some dispute regarding the distance between the mast site and the nearest residential properties, I am satisfied that due to the intervening distances between them, and the presence of mature woodland and vegetation, that the siting and appearance of the proposed mast would not be overbearing.

Although the proposed mast would be visible from other properties on [address] and surrounding roads, any such views would be over a notably large distance and would be disrupted by the presence of landscaping and general built development. In consequence, the development would not lead to a harmful loss of outlook for the occupiers of other residential properties in the surrounding area.

Whilst the proposal would be visible from the training centre and grounds as a non-residential use, I do not find it would result in material harm to outlook to users of the facility.

Accordingly, I do not concur that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of existing residential properties in terms of their outlook.

Concerns regarding loss of view are outside the remit of the appeal and accordingly this factor has not had any material bearing on my assessment of this appeal.

For the reasons stated, there would not be any material harm caused by the proposal to the living conditions of nearby residents. Insofar as they are a material consideration, the proposal would comply Policy GC4 of the DPD in respect of safeguarding residential amenity.

[name] have found the siting and appearance of the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the River Wensum River Valley Landscape Character Area it is therefore necessary to consider whether there are any alternative, preferable sites where the proposal could be located.

The Framework recognises that high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. It therefore supports the expansion of electronic communication networks, including 5G. It is evident from the maps provided by the appellant that there is a need for improved network coverage in the area and this has not been contested by the Council.

The Framework also advises that applications for electronic communications development (including applications for prior approval under the GPDO) should be supported by the necessary evidence to justify the proposed development. For a new mast or base station, this should include evidence that the applicant has undertaken a sequential approach to site selections, exploring the possibility of erecting antennas on existing buildings, masts, or other structures before considering new ground-based masts.

The new mast is proposed as a replacement option for an existing mast located approximately 660m to the southeast on [address] following a Notice to Quit (NTQ) by the landowner. The options for siting the mast are constrained by the need to replace the connectivity which will be lost as a result of the existing mast’s removal, and also to provide upgraded and improved connectivity.

A tall installation would inevitably have some visual impact, wherever it was sited. Options for alternative sitings are limited by technological constraints, and other factors including land levels, surrounding land uses and existing landscaping.

The majority of buildings within the search area are residential properties and the hospital buildings nearby largely consist of low-level pitched roof buildings with no feasible options identified.

D1 is proximate to the NTQ site, and a replacement monopole mast would not meet the technical requirements sought. Due to the lack of screening, a mast would be more conspicuous from nearby residential properties as would option D10. D2 is an existing radio mast, however, this was discounted for structural reasons and in any event is out of the search area and would therefore not provide improved and replacement connectivity to the target area. D3 is an existing rooftop site that has been discounted due to a lack of available space and feasible design options. D4 considered the hospital grounds. However, due to operational needs, re-development plans at the site, along with the timeliness required to secure replacement coverage the site was discounted. D6 could accommodate a mast. However, the site is relatively open and highly visible from [address].

Within the search area, discounted alternative sites D5, D7, D8, D9, D11, D12 and D13 would be within a more open, rural landscape and would be less effectively screened by existing trees and vegetation. Furthermore, some of these alternative sites did not have an existing access and/or ground levels were significantly lower than the appeal site and thus would not be feasible to secure the coverage required.

The appellant has provided adequate and persuasive evidence of its network coverage requirements, and its site selection process, listing a number of alternative sites that have been discounted. No compelling evidence has been provided to undermine the credibility of these submissions, or the size of the search area. The Framework does not require the appellant to consider every possible site, and the Council has not provided any suggestions as to alternative sites which might be preferable.

Having regard to all these matters, none of the alternative options or locations that have been drawn to my attention are obviously more preferable to that proposed by the appellant. I therefore conclude that the proposed installation would be no more intrusive than would be the case elsewhere in terms of its siting and appearance, within the technical limitations of the network. Consequently, the evidence demonstrates that the proposal is the ‘least-worst’ option of the alternatives put forward. Given that the principle of telecommunications equipment is accepted by the GPDO, this is a strong factor in favour of allowing the appeal.

I have had careful regard to interested parties’ representations which have expressed a number of concerns including the health implications of the proposed installation, the effect of the proposal in respect of wildlife, noise and disturbance, diminishing property values of an award-winning residential development and covenants on land.

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. The absence of harm in this regard counts neither for, nor against the proposal.

No objections have been received from the Council’s Highways Engineer in respect of highway safety and there is also little firm evidence before me to support interested parties’ views that the proposal would cause noise disturbance. Any disturbance during construction would be for a temporary period only. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to suppose that the proposal would cause material harm to wildlife or biodiversity.

Given the scale of the development and its position, I have no reason to believe that the proposed installation would lead to an adverse effect upon the continued use of the adjacent training facility.

The proposal would improve the provision of a 5G network in this location, with associated benefits including faster and more reliable 5G connectivity. In turn it would contribute to economic growth in the UK, improve connectivity in society and serve potential new technologies including in terms of sustainability, health and education. I acknowledge that the proposal to provide coverage in this geographical area is part of a wider whole and that the network would be undermined by gaps in coverage. I consider that the public benefits would be moderate.

[name] have found that the siting and appearance of the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties, or the integrity of nearby trees, it would cause moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the River Wensum River Valley Landscape Character Area. However, the principle of development within the search area has been established through the grant of permission under Article 3(1) of the GPDO and it has been demonstrated that there are no less harmful sites to accommodate the proposal. Having regard to all relevant considerations, including the Framework, I consider that the operational and locational needs of the operators and the enhancement of the local telecommunications network would outweigh the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area.

The Order 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 above, the appeal should be allowed and prior approval granted.