Appeal 6003624

The appeal is dismissed.

The address of the appeal site differs slightly on the application form to that used on the Council’s decision notice. I have used the address cited on the decision notice as this more accurately describes the site’s location, and has also been used within the appellant’s appeal documents.

The Council has referred to a number of development plan policies in its decision notice. However, the principle of development is established by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended, and the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A do not require that regard is had to the development plan. I have had regard to the policies of the development plan only insofar as they are a material consideration 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 including the Newsham Park Conservation Area, the Grade II Listed Newsham Park Registered Park and Garden and its setting, and with regard to trees; 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 lies on the northern edge of the Newsham Park Conservation Area (the CA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA includes the Grade II Registered Park and Garden (the RPG) of Newsham Park and the residential development along its periphery.

Newsham Park was created in the latter half of the 19th century to provide green space for the dense housing areas of the expanding city, with residential sites leased to pay for its development. Substantial semi-detached houses were built around the park during the 1870s-90s. The park includes a lake, pond, ornamental gardens, bandstand, paths and a large number of trees. The aesthetic appearance of the park and surrounding residential development, in addition to the historic and communal value associated with the development and use of the park, contribute to the significance of the CA and the RPG.

The appeal site comprises a section of grass verge between [address] and [address]. [address] is a well-trafficked dual carriageway, the separation provided by the tree lined verge gives [address], with its large semi-detached dwellings, an attractive residential character. The site sits beside the turning head at the end of [address] and close to a large grassed area, containing a number of substantial trees, at the entrance to Newsham Park. These trees, along with those in the verge and central reservation, combine to give the area a distinctly verdant, green character. There are also several vertical structures present nearby, including tall lighting columns within the central reservation, shorter lampposts on [address] and [address], a speed camera, and 2 telecommunications masts - [address] and a smaller viewed over the police station building.

The proposed monopole would occupy a prominent roadside position and would be highly visible from both [address] and [address]. It would be considerably taller and bulkier than the existing lighting columns and would be positioned closer to [address] than the existing mast near [address], accentuating its visual dominance. The presence of existing tall structures can sometimes help integrate telecommunications equipment into a street scene and it is acknowledged that the appellant has chosen this location in response to a previous refusal for a mast at the junction of [address] and Oakleigh. However, in this case, due to the height, proximity and irregular alignment of the two masts, it would instead add visual clutter and conflict with the generally regular pattern and lightweight lighting structures in the central reservation and would consequently harm the area’s character and appearance.

Trees at the end of [address] provide some screening of the existing mast from the west, but they would not screen the proposed mast from the eastern end of the street, where it would be clearly visible within the CA. The trees located within the verge, to the west of the site, are also unlikely to provide meaningful screening in longer views along [address], as the mast would rise well above them. The proposed structure would appear conspicuous and jarring in views that include the large semi-detached dwellings that strongly contribute to the CA’s significance, and from some of these residential properties. Despite its design, it would appear bulky and intrusive, harming the residential character and appearance of [address].

Although the large trees within the grassed area at the end of [address] would soften and provide screening in some views, the mast’s position close to both [address] and [address] would increase its prominence in the street scene and in relation to the designated heritage assets. Its tall, utilitarian form would contrast sharply with the scale of the nearby houses and the verdant character created by the many trees. This harm would be compounded when seen alongside the existing mast on [address], which currently reads as a standalone structure.

Due to its height, the mast would rise above the tree canopy and the rooflines of houses at the northern edge of Newsham Park. As a result, the top of the mast would likely be visible from within the park, especially in winter. Even if only the upper section were seen, it would appear discordant in this historic park setting, which is otherwise well‐contained and visually separate from [address]. Although an existing lattice structure is visible from elsewhere in the park, it sits in a different context and does not justify the harm the proposal would cause.

Whilst on the periphery, the grassed area and substantial trees at the end of [address] mark the entrance to Newsham Park and make a strong contribution to the character and appearance of the CA and the Registered Park and Garden. The Council’s decision refers to potential harm to trees through pruning to maintain signal coverage, and the officer report also raises concerns about the installation’s proximity to a tree within 2.4 metres of the site. Both matters are therefore addressed.

Antennas require clear line of sight to the area they serve, and trees can disrupt coverage. Given the height and proximity of the trees, future growth could lead to pressure for pruning or even felling, threatening their long‐term retention. No tree survey has been provided to assess their height, maturity, future growth or potential impact on signal performance.

The appellant states that the nearest tree is around 8.5 metres from the site within the grass verge, which aligns with my observations on site. On this basis, direct physical harm to roots or canopy is unlikely. Nevertheless, without robust evidence, the mast’s proximity to several tall trees would be likely to create ongoing pressure for pruning to maintain signal quality. This could harm the trees’ health and amenity value, and in turn the character and appearance of the CA and the RPG. Whilst Policy GI9 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (2022) (the Local Plan) requires tree surveys for development within 3 metres of a canopy, it also requires development to be integrated with trees, avoiding conflicts and considering their future growth, which are requirements not met here.

Overall, the appeal proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would harm the significance of the RPG through its effect on setting and on trees within it.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, and that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Paragraph 213 of the Framework states that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the CA and to the significance of the RPG and this harm would be less than substantial. Given the location at the edge of the CA and outside the RPG, the level of harm would be at the middle to lower end of that spectrum. Nevertheless, mindful of the statutory duty in respect of the CA, I give this harm considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this should be weighed against the public benefits.

The proposal would provide enhanced 4G coverage, increased capacity, and new 5G service provision within this built up area. In turn it would contribute to economic growth in the UK and improve connectivity in society including supporting local services and health and wellbeing. I consider that the public benefits arising from this particular proposal would be moderate. I also acknowledge that the height of 20 metres is required to provide coverage to the target area, to ensure that the antennas clear the surrounding buildings, urban clutter and trees to operate effectively.

When taken together, I find that the above-mentioned public benefits and height justification do not outweigh the considerable importance and weight I must attach to the harm to the CA and the RPG, including the special attention that I must pay to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

I therefore conclude that the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the CA, the RPG and its setting and with regard to trees. Therefore, insofar as they are a material consideration, the proposal would be contrary to the aims of Policies H7, UD1, UD2, STP4, HD1 and GI9 of the Local Plan. Collectively these seek to ensure that, amongst other matters, there is no adverse impact on the character of the area, taking account its characteristics and relationship to the public realm, proposals conserve or enhance the historic environment particularly the city’s parks, development is suitably integrated with trees taking into account their current and future requirements, and the contribution of new infrastructure outweighs the adverse impact.

The appellant has set out that the proposal is required to replace the existing radio base station at [name], which currently serves 2 operators, and is not structurally capable of supporting the additional equipment required by VMO2 to provide enhanced 4G coverage, increased capacity, and new 5G service provision. Local Plan Policy STP4 supports new infrastructure required to deliver national priorities. Paragraph 119 of the Framework advises that advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social wellbeing.

Paragraph 122 of the Framework requires proposals to be supported by evidence, including exploring mast‐sharing or using existing buildings or structures. The appellant’s requirements to provide a site close to the existing base station, to ensure current coverage is replicated, has resulted in a relatively small search area. Nevertheless, 36 alternative sites have been considered, with the appellant concluding that these are unsuitable.

The Council has raised specific concerns in respect of the assessment of sites D24 (the existing site), D28 (the existing mast at [address]) and D36 (grass reservation of [address]). It is noted that the mast at the police station site is proposed to be retained and continue to serve the separate operator and the proposal therefore introduces a third mast within a small area.

In respect of the 2 existing masts, there is some dispute between the parties about the technical requirements and the level of information required for sites to be discounted. However, on the basis of the information before me, there is a lack of detailed technical information and assessment in respect of what would be required for these sites to be shared, including any necessary redevelopment. Whilst the appellant considers that more detail would be overly onerous, the proposed development is in a sensitive location and results in harm to the significance of heritage assets. It is therefore particularly important that other options, including sharing sites with other operators, are properly explored.

During the consideration of the application, the Council advised that the central reservation along [address] should be considered. Whilst the appellant has raised some technical issues with this location, including in respect of underground services and likely disruption during construction, the evidence in respect of these matters is limited. They have also advised that this would be more prominent than the appeal site, although it would be outside the CA and further from the RPG and would be more in line with the rhythm of lighting columns in the central reservation. There is also a large section of this central reservation that could be considered. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that this alternative has been robustly explored.

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, including in relation to the CA, the RPG and its setting and with regard to trees, and, based on the evidence provided, I am not satisfied that less harmful alternatives have been properly explored. For these reasons I find the siting and appearance of the proposed development to be unacceptable and is not outweighed by the need for the installation.

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