Appeal 6003148

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 17.5m monopole, supporting 6 no. antennas, 1 no. 0.3m transmission dish, 2 no. equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto including 3 no. [name] (RRHs) at [site address] in accordance with the application 1247/25 and the details submitted with it including plan nos 201 [name] (proposed site plan) and 301 [name] (proposed site elevation).

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO 2015), 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.

The Council’s reason for refusal sets out that prior approval was refused on the matters of siting and appearance. Although the refusal reason also refers to a different part of the GPDO, the evidence before me shows that the Council assessed the proposal on the relevant matters of siting and appearance, and this is reflected in my main issue below.

The main issue is the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed mast on the appearance and setting of the nearby [name] listed building.

The appeal site comprises a section of footway positioned along the edge of the large surface-level car park, between Forest Road and [address]. The site lies only a short distance from the [name], which connects five separate roads. The area around the roundabout, including the appeal site, is notably open, formed by wide road corridors, the extensive car park, and the lack of enclosure.

As a result, the appeal site is visually exposed from several directions, including views approaching from Forest Road, [address], Barkingside, and [address]. There are broad sightlines across the car park towards surrounding buildings, including the [name], such that structures placed on the appeal site would be readily perceptible from the public realm.

Due to the extensive road infrastructure around the roundabout, with its multiple arms, wide carriageways and turning lanes, together with the set back of other buildings, which include substantial buildings, many of which are at least 3 storeys in height, some significantly more, there is an open character to the junction and its immediate surroundings.

These features, together with the presence of tall lighting columns, traffic signals, barrier rails and other items of street furniture, together with the surrounding backdrop of substantial commercial and civic buildings, contribute to a busy, functional and mixed environment.

The Fulwell Cross Library (the library) fronts one side of the roundabout, and due to the lack of any significant intervening-built form, is clearly visible from the appeal site together with several nearby roads. The Grade II Listed building is architecturally significant for its distinctive circular ‘drum’ form which together with its low concrete profile and varied fenestration makes it a highly recognisable and architecturally important building. The open surroundings to the library are important to its ability to be clearly seen and understood by the public, allowing its architectural form to be fully appreciated.

Nonetheless, while both the library and the appeal site are open and easy to see in their immediate surroundings, the mast would sit a clear physical distance away from the library. Its position next to [address] means it would not break any existing views towards the library from most directions. The only place where the mast could interrupt a line of sight towards the library would be from land around the junction of [address] and Forest Road, such as the position shown in images 7a & b of the appellants photo montage.

In this view, the tall but slender profile of the mast would obscure only a very small portion of the building and its roof. Given the width and overall scale of the library, its unique shape and repetitive architectural detailing would still be clearly appreciated and understood. As a result, the partial obscuring effect of the mast would not materially affect the legibility or appreciation of the building.

The setting of the library is already surrounded by vertical structures in the form of streetlights. These, together with the other forms of infrastructure in the vicinity, are not unexpected, and do not detract from the significance of the building. [name] recognise that the mast is of a greater width than that of nearby streetlights, the difference would not be significant, particularly given the distances between the vertical features and the library. Relative to the more substantial form of surrounding buildings, it would closely resemble the streetlights and the width would not appear significant, instead it would blend into the established character of the immediate vicinity.

I note that the land between the appeal site and the library is allocated for a mixed-use development of retail and residential uses. If this development comes forward, the open character of the land between the two sites would change considerably. [name] do not have a detailed scheme before me, it is reasonable to assume that substantial new buildings in this location would further limit, or even remove, any visual connection between the mast and the library. As a result, even if that development were delivered, it would not change my findings above.

Given how it would successfully integrate with its surroundings, together with the very limited, interruption of views, which I find would not be harmful, I am satisfied that the siting and appearance of the mast would preserve the appearance and setting of the nearby library.

My attention has been drawn to a dismissed appeal for a telecommunications pole at [address], Ilford1. In that case, the Inspector found that the height of the pole was jarring and out of place, and harmful to the Claybury Conservation Area. While both schemes involve tall vertical structures, the two sites are not comparable, and the verdant character of [address] was an important factor in that decision. This appeal concerns a different location and a different heritage asset. I have therefore considered it on its own, site-specific merits.

Concerns have been raised about a number of other considerations, including the effects of the construction process and health concerns. However, as the appeal relates to prior approval, the matters for consideration are restricted to those set out in the relevant paragraphs of the GPDO. Therefore, these other issues raised fall outside the matters I can consider. Notwithstanding this, 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).

Any planning permission granted for the development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A is subject to conditions set out in [name].3(9), A.3(11) and A.2(2), which specify that the development must, except to the extent that the local planning authority otherwise agree in writing, be carried out in accordance with the details submitted with the application, must begin not later than the expiration of 5 years beginning with the date on which the local planning authority received the application, and must 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 Council has suggested that two additional planning conditions be imposed should approval be granted. However, the GPDO 2015 does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions beyond the deemed conditions 1 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/W/23/3323133 mentioned above and in any event they merely sought to require the implementation of the colour schemes shown on the submitted details. Consequently, I have not imposed those suggested conditions.

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