Appeal 6002698

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 17.5m high monopole supporting 6 no. antennas, 2 no. dish antennas, the installation of 2 no. equipment cabinets at ground level and development works ancillary thereto, at [site address] in accordance with the application ref DC/25/01541/TELCOM and the details submitted with it including plan numbers: location plan ref 100C; 201C; 301C.

The address of the appeal site in the banner heading above reflects the planning decision notice and not the original prior approval application form. I consider the address on the decision notice better describes the location of the site, and this is the address also used on the appellant’s appeal form.

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.

The Council has referred to development plan policies in its decision notice. The provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO 2015 do not require regard be had to the development plan. I have had regard to Policies 37 and 89 of the London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019, which are referred to in the Council’s decision notice, only insofar as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance. Similarly, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is also a material consideration, and this includes a section on supporting high quality communications.

The main issues are: • the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance of the area; and, • if any harm were to occur, whether this is outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed taking into account any suitable alternatives.

[site address] is a residential street which has a spacious, verdant character. The area close to the appeal site comprises low rise 3-4 storey blocks of flats, generally set back from the highway in communal gardens. Wide grassed verges line either side of the street, separating the carriageway from the footway. Substantial trees line the verges at varying intervals.

The proposed monopole, antennas and equipment cabinets would be located on the grassed verge immediately opposite the flank elevation of [site address] , the equipment would be finished in dark green. Whilst there are no windows in the side elevation of [site address] closest to the appeal site, the proposed installation would be visible from residential windows of [address] facing the site to the northeast, as well as in more oblique views from [site address] to the east.

The installation would be located near to the junction with [address] and [address]. The bulky cabinets and monopole would be highly visible in localised public views from around the junction and from [site address] itself. The functional appearance of the installation would be at odds with the verdant, suburban street scene which, on this part of [site address] , contains little significant street furniture. The monopole would extend above the adjacent building and trees; it would therefore be visible against the sky.

In medium and longer distance views looking west along [site address] , the trees in the street scene would assist in screening the view, although this effect would be reduced when the trees are not in leaf. In longer views from [address] (looking both north and south), and looking east from [address], the monopole would appear more assimilated in the street scene given the intervening buildings, street furniture and trees.

I note interested parties’ views regarding the effect of the installation on the setting of the nearby [address] Conservation Area and Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area. Given the surrounding urban context, including [address], a reasonably tall building on the opposite side of the junction, I do not consider that the proposal would be unacceptably harmful to the setting of the Conservation Areas to the north and south of the appeal site.

Notwithstanding my conclusions on the longer views across the area, in localised views from [site address] and its junction with [address] and [address], the installation would appear as a dominant feature in the street scene. I consider this would result in moderate harm to the to the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore necessary to consider whether there would be any alternative, preferable sites where the installation could be located.

The appellant states that the proposal would enable the operator, O2, to provide enhanced 4G and 5G services to the surrounding area. It is said that the operator currently provides limited 4G connectivity to the surrounding area from an existing installation at the junction of [address] and Park Road which is shared and restricts the services that can be provided. This has been supported by coverage plots showing signal strength across the area. I have no compelling evidence before me which would contradict the appellant’s technical modelling of site coverage and signal quality.

Detailed evidence has been provided which identifies the highly constrained cell search area and a number of alternative sites that were considered and discounted, including existing sites, buildings and structures and ground-based installations. This reflects the sequential procedure as set out in the Framework.

Of the sites identified within the specific cell search area, the appellant discounted the option to upgrade the existing site at the corner of [address]/Park Road due to the combination of the lower antenna position and lower land level compared to the appeal site. The current installation is also in a prominent position within a Conservation Area. The only other opportunity for site sharing identified was outside the search area.

Other alternative sites have been discounted for reasons including heritage constraints due to the presence of Conservation Areas and proximity to other designated and non-designated heritage assets. Local topography was also a significant factor in discounting sites. The low-rise nature of the search area means that significant structures would be required at roof level to achieve sufficient antenna height, and consequently the associated visual impact would be significant. Another rooftop site was discounted due to lack of 24-hour access. Other locations for street installations have been discounted largely due to inadequate pavement widths, proximity to residential windows and proximity to trees.

It has been demonstrated that a comprehensive analysis of potential alternative sites has been considered, with clear reasons given why such alternatives were discounted and/or were less favourable compared to the appeal site. The Council and interested parties have not suggested any alternative sites and there is no substantive evidence that challenges the rationale for discounting the alternatives that have been considered. I have no robust evidence before me to suggest that there would be other more suitable sites.

In conclusion therefore, I am satisfied that there are no other mast site sharing opportunities, suitable buildings or other structures within the required search area that would be capable of accommodating the proposed installation. Although the installation would be visually prominent in the street scene, there would be a degree of mitigation offered by the surrounding trees. The appeal proposal would not be located directly outside residential windows, which would have been the case with some of the alternative sites. The identified harm is outweighed by the need for the installation to be located as proposed, taking into account any suitable alternatives.

The Council did not oppose the siting of the equipment in respect of neighbours’ living conditions or proximity to trees. I note comments on these matters from interested parties, but on the evidence before me and with the benefit of a site visit, I do not consider the proposal would be harmful in these respects.

I acknowledge interested parties’ concerns with regard to highway safety, which include references to collisions at the junction and [name] records showing a collision on [site address] . However, the proposed installation would be located well back from the junction, and I am satisfied that it would not impede on driver or pedestrian sightlines when approaching or turning through the junction. The installation would also be set away from the vehicular crossover for [site address] . There is little substantive evidence before me that there would be harm to driver visibility when exiting onto [site address] from [site address] ; in any event, drivers would necessarily approach the exit with caution before turning onto [site address] . The footway adjacent to the grassed verge would not be obstructed and would allow pedestrian passage. Significantly, the Council and the local highway authority did not raise objection in this regard, and there is little compelling evidence that the siting of the installation would be harmful to highway or pedestrian safety.

Concerns have been raised about potential effects on health, particularly the proposed installation’s proximity to residential properties and a nursery. 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.

I have been referred to the existing level of 5G coverage in the area, as well as to the proximity of other masts. However, the GPDO is clear that the only considerations in prior approval should be the siting and appearance of the proposal.

Reference has been made to a previously refused application at the appeal site for a 20m high monopole (ref 24/04149/TELCOM). I have necessarily assessed the appeal before me on its own merits, and the existence of the previous refusal does not alter my conclusions on this appeal.

I note the concerns expressed over property values, however this is a private interest and as such I do not give weight to this matter as a material consideration.

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, the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area would be outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking account of suitable alternatives. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.