Appeal 6003192

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 20-metre street works Valmont monopole, equipped with 2 GPS nodes at the top; the structure will support a total of 9 antennas positioned at heights of 16.32m, 18.22m, and 19.52m, along with 2 x 300mm transmission dishes at 13.62m; additionally, 6 equipment cabinets will be installed at ground level, along with associated ancillary equipment, at [site address] , [site address] , Toxteth, Liverpool [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 25PT/2007 and the details submitted with it.

The provisions under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO 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, having regard to the policies of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only in so far as they are material considerations relevant to the matters of siting and appearance.

The main issue is the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed telecommunications installation on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site occupies an open stretch of footway on [site address] , at the interface between an area characterised by commercial and industrial uses to the north and lower-scale residential development to the south. The proposed 20 metre monopole mast would be taller than nearby buildings, streetlighting columns and the majority of trees in the area. As a result, it would be clearly visible in the local street scene and would introduce a new vertical element.

However, visibility alone does not amount to harm. The openness of this section of [site address] would allow the mast to be perceived as a freestanding vertical feature within a broad streetscape, not as an element that would crowd or dominate the public realm. In longer views north-eastwards along [site address] , the mast would be seen in the context of an urban backdrop of taller buildings further along the street. From the south, including from the nearest residential properties, the mast would be seen at a degree of separation and against the distant city centre skyline, rather than in close association with the dwellings themselves.

The separation distance, together with the slender profile of the monopole, would ensure that it would not appear unduly dominant or oppressive when viewed from nearby residential properties. While the installation would be noticeable, it would read as a functional piece of infrastructure within a mixed urban environment that already accommodates a range of utilitarian features, rather than as a discordant or visually harmful intrusion.

I have also had regard to concerns raised about potential effects on trees in the vicinity. From my site visit, I did not observe any trees whose health, longevity or contribution to the character of the street scene would be materially affected by the proposal, and there is no substantive evidence to the contrary.

In conclusion, having regard to the siting and appearance of the proposal in its context, I find no material harm to the character or appearance of the area that would justify withholding prior approval. Whilst not determinative, the proposal complies with Policies UD1 and UD2 of the Liverpool Local Plan (2022), and the Framework insofar as they are relevant to matters of siting and appearance. It follows that it is not necessary for me to reach a determinative view on the relative merits of alternative sites that were discounted.

Any approval for development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A is subject to the conditions set out in [name].3(9), A.3(11) and A.2(2), which specify that the development must 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. There is no authority to impose further conditions.

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