Appeal 6002827

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 installation of a telecommunications base station comprising a 17.50m monopole supporting 6No. antennas, 1No. 300mm dish together with 2No. ground-based cabinets, 1No. meter cabinet, and ancillary development thereto at land at [address], [site address] , Trafford [postcode] in accordance with the application 117190/TEL/25 and the details submitted with it including drawings:100 Dwg [name]; 200 Dwg [name]; 201 Dwg [name]; 300 Dwg [name]; and 301 Dwg [name].

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 principle of development is established by the GPDO, which does not require regard to be given to the development plan. I have had regard to Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024), Policy L7 of the [name] (2012), and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in so far as they are a material considerations relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

The main issues are: • the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance of the area, and on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby dwellings, with particular regards to outlook; 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 alternatives.

The appeal site comprises a paved area of footway adjacent an area of grassed amenity land which is located between [address] and [address], close to its junction with [address].

Existing vertical structures in the area include street lighting columns, telegraph poles and road signage. There are also several trees within the grass verges either side of the junction and alongside the road edge of the pavement. In combination with other street trees, these afford visual relief in the built form and consequently, the surrounding close-knit residential area has a predominantly leafy and verdant character and appearance.

It is proposed to install a 17.5m high monopole which would accommodate six antennas and a single dish and would be sited parallel to the rear of the footway. The mast would be the minimum height required to provide adequate coverage to the target area, but it would nevertheless be significantly taller than the closest dwellings and the existing vertical structures, notably the street lighting columns on either side of [address]. Further, although of a slimline design, the circumference of the antennas and dish on the upper section of the mast would give it an appreciably bulkier appearance.

Consequently, the mast would appear a conspicuous feature when viewed in proximity to the appeal site notably along the short section of [address] approaching the junction. Although typical of telecommunications equipment seen in urban areas, the introduction of the monopole and equipment cabinets would nevertheless noticeably erode the visual relief afforded by the adjacent amenity land. However, as the road bends and the alignment of the highway is staggered, the wider visual impact would be significantly reduced and from further away along [address] the installation would largely be seen alongside the street trees and the Birch trees within the adjacent amenity land.

Similarly, in longer views from [address], [address], and from the junction of [address] with [address], the lower part of the mast would be seen against the backdrop of existing trees. Even when not in full leaf, these would provide some softening of the appearance of the monopole. However, because of its height, the upper part of the installation, and particularly the antennas and dish, would be visually dominant on the skyline, above the existing trees, surrounding dwellings and street lighting columns. The visual impact arising from the mast would not be sufficiently mitigated by its fir green colour.

I therefore conclude that the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would be seen in views from dwellings close to the junction. The nearest property is [address] which borders the footway and area of amenity space. The main windows of this dwelling would almost directly face the installation in reasonable proximity. When viewed from these windows or the garden, despite its slender profile, the lower part of the monopole would appear an overbearing structure, wider and more visually intrusive than nearby telegraph poles or street light columns.

Other residences on [address], [address] and [address] are more distant from the site, and the proposal would also be offset in views from these dwellings. Moreover, the intervening trees would be effective in screening or filtering oblique views from the windows of these dwellings even during the winter months. Therefore, the proposal would not cause any undue obstruction to views or have any significant overbearing effect on these nearby dwellings.

Nevertheless, the proposal would be dominant enough to result in harm to the living conditions of the neighbours at [address], with regards to outlook.

The Framework states that decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology, such as 5G. The operator previously provided coverage from a shared base station site at a multi-storey car park at [address], but a ‘Notice to Quit’ has been served.

The appellant has split the single cell area previously covered by this base station. The identified search area is the newly created southern cell area, which is relatively constrained and broadly comprises the residential roads either side of [address]. The proposal is required to provide replacement and improved network coverage and capacity, and to establish new 5G connectivity services for the VodafoneThree network. I am satisfied that the appellant has demonstrated that the site is within an area with demonstrable need for a new installation.

The Framework encourages the use of existing masts, buildings and structures for new electronic capability. Paragraph 122 of the Framework requires evidence to be submitted to demonstrate that applicants have explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure. The appellant has undertaken a search for alternative sites within the cell search area, applying a sequential site selection process.

Thirty-five potential alternative sites have been assessed by the appellant to accommodate the proposed development, including the NTQ site and several sections or lengths of pavement. Eleven rooftop options were discounted principally due to technical constraints, including the height or construction of the roof, or the size and design of installation which would be required for effective transmission or International Commission on [name] (ICNIRP) certification. The search area is characterised predominantly by relatively tight-knit suburban housing and the reasons for discounting the other sites included insufficient space on the footways (limited in places by street trees), the location of underground services, overhead lines and points of access to dwellings. Potential sites to the west of the tramline were discounted as the required coverage would not be met.

Site 15 ([address] Yard) was discounted solely on the basis that an installation would be directly opposite 122-126 (even) [address]. I observed on my site visit that an installation sited on the frontage of Site 15 would be further from these dwellings than the appeal proposal would be from [address]. However, the installation would also be close to windows on the flank elevation of the adjoining apartment building, known as [address]. Further, in contrast to the appeal site, views of the installation would not be screened or filtered by trees.

Therefore, based on my observations and the evidence, I am satisfied that there are no realistic opportunities to erect antennas on existing buildings, masts or other structures. The site selection process was robust, potential alternatives discounted on reasonable grounds and the Council themselves recognise that there are no alternative appropriate sites. Accordingly, I conclude that the harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions of nearby occupiers would be outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed given the lack of suitable alternatives.

The appellant has provided a certificate to confirm that the proposal has been designed to comply with the guidelines published by ICNIRP. In these circumstances, the Framework advises that health safeguards are not something which a decision-maker should determine. No persuasive 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. Moreover, I have no sufficiently authoritative evidence before me that there is an objective justification for fears resulting from interference with medical equipment or implants.

I have had regard to other concerns raised by interested parties. However, the principle of development is established by the GPDO, and my considerations are limited to the siting and appearance of the apparatus in accordance with the relevant legislation as set out in the preliminary matters section of my decision. In this regard, there is no substantive evidence relating to fear and anxiety, noise and disturbance, ecology or biodiversity, the cumulative effects of 5G rollout, or climate change that would alter or outweigh my findings on the main issues.

The GPDO does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions beyond the deemed conditions for development by electronic code operators contained within it. These specify that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details submitted, and the [name] plan shows the installation painted fir green, as requested by the Council.

I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval granted. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR