Appeal 6003236

The appeal is dismissed.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the 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. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis.

The principle of development is established by the GPDO, and the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A do not require regard to be had to the development plan. I have had regard to the policies of the Liverpool Local Plan 2013 – 2033 (2022) (the Local Plan) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

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

The appeal site relates to a small, grassed area located to the rear of [site address] . It is screened from [site address] by buildings and boundary walls although the footpath linking [site address] to [address] allows some views through metal palisade fencing. A dense group of trees, protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), lies next to the site. The upper parts of trees in this group are visible from [site address] , and a greater proportion can be seen from the linking footpath and from [address]. Together with the street trees on [site address] , they make a strong positive contribution to the character and appearance of this urban area.

The appellant’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment with [name] (November 2025) (AIA) identifies several individual trees adjacent to the appeal site. Two of these (T6 and T10) are identified as category B, meaning they are of moderate quality and have a reasonable lifespan. The large group next to these (G13), which lies further from the appeal site, is also identified as category B.

The AIA identifies that pruning is required to the canopy of T10 to allow for clearance from the proposed installation. The proposed cabinets and part of the proposed compound, foundations and hardstanding would also be sited within the root protection area (RPA) of T10. Even though this would affect only a small part of the RPA, damage to trees can be caused by cutting the roots and compaction of the soil structure. The AIA recommends that any hard surface within the RPA be constructed using a ‘Minimum-Dig’ method, and that roots occurring in clumps or of 25mm diameter and over should only be severed following consultation with an arboriculturist as these might be essential to the tree’s health and stability.

The ‘[name] example provided in the AIA is not specific to the proposed installation and relates to a light duty driveway. No technical details have been provided in relation to the construction of the proposed hardstanding and foundations, including the depth of the latter. It is therefore unclear if this method would be suitable to support the proposed mast and whether the siting of the structures within the RPA would cause issues, such as compaction, and compromise the long-term health of the tree.

The appellant refers to National Joint Utilities Group Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of [name] in Proximity to Trees, but the section quoted deals with excavation near trees and does not address foundations or structures. Based on the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that T10 would not be harmed or that its long‐term retention would be secured. The Council also notes that poplars are prone to decay and that pruning could lead to future structural problems. I have no reason to dispute this.

The AIA shows that many nearby trees are tall. Taking the heights from the AIA, T6 and T10 are approximately 17 metres and 19 metres respectively, G13 is 15 metres, and another group closer to [address] (G4) is 19 metres. Antennas require clear ‘line of sight’ to the area they serve, and trees can significantly affect coverage. The appellant’s Site Specific Supplementary Information states that the effects of trees on signal degradation should not be underestimated, and leaves on trees in spring and summer can cause shadowing, reduce radio voice quality and increase the number of dropped calls. It advises that the bottom of an antenna should be above the top level of the trees, allow greater height due to antenna downtilt and allow for future tree growth. Whilst the plans indicate the presence of nearby trees, these show tree heights lower than those recorded in the AIA and do not therefore provide a clear representation of the height of the trees in respect of the proposed apparatus.

Given their height and proximity, the retained trees could disrupt signals which would likely lead to significant pressure for future pruning or felling, thereby undermining their long-term retention. The appellant has not provided detailed consideration of how the current or future height of the trees would affect the antenna’s line of sight.

Paragraph 136 of the Framework emphasises that trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments, and decisions should ensure that they are retained wherever possible. Although there are other substantial trees in the wider area, this does not reduce the value of those next to the appeal site, which reinforce the verdant character of this part of the city.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to protected trees. Therefore, insofar as it is a material consideration, the proposal would be contrary to the aims of Policy G19 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that development is suitably integrated with trees, that potential conflicts are avoided and site layouts show adequate spacing between development and retained trees, taking into account current and future spatial requirements of the tree. It would also conflict with the provisions of the Framework in respect of achieving well designed places.

The proposal would replace an existing installation approximately 0.2 miles from the appeal site, which is to be decommissioned following a Notice to Quit. The appellant states that available options are limited and the appeal site is essential to maintain network coverage, provide an improved level of service and 5G coverage.

The need for the replacement mast is not disputed. However, paragraph 122 of the Framework requires proposals to be supported by evidence, including exploring mast‐sharing or using existing buildings or structures. The appellant has identified that mast sharing or using an existing building or tall structure is not available, although limited details have been provided to demonstrate this and the extent of the search area is unclear. Nine alternative sites have been considered, with the appellant concluding that these are all unsuitable.

Although the Council considers that the site provides the best available option, the appellant’s reasons for discounting alternatives are very limited. Some were discounted due to visual sensitivity, proximity to trees or operational issues, but 2 were in industrial or commercial areas. Option D1 has been found unsuitable due to the loss of parking spaces which is argued would impede the functioning of the associated business. However, no detailed evidence has been provided on how many parking spaces would be lost or why this would harm the business.

Option D9 is identified as a good industrial location but has been ruled out due to lack of space for a large compound. However, it is unclear from the evidence if a detailed assessment of suitable sites in this industrial area, more generally, has been undertaken, including in respect of roadside locations. Furthermore, the lack of clarification regarding the search area also raises uncertainty about whether all potential sites have been appropriately considered.

Consequently, based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the appellant has properly explored all other potentially available, and less harmful, alternative options. I therefore find the siting of the proposed development to be unacceptable and is not outweighed by the need for the installation.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other prior approval proposals for similar installations that have been allowed at appeal, although limited details have been provided. Nevertheless, whether or not a proposal of this nature is acceptable will be highly context specific and, whilst there would no doubt be situations where such development is acceptable, that is not the case in this context. I also note that the appellant entered into pre-application discussions with the Council prior to submitting the application. Nevertheless, pre-application advice is not determinative in the assessment of this appeal.

[name] recognise that there are wider social and economic benefits that would arise from the proposal, the GPDO is clear that the only considerations should be the siting and appearance.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.