Appeal 6003996

The appeal is dismissed.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (the Order) 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 provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Order do not require regard to be had to the development plan. I have therefore had regard to the policies of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only insofar as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

The South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (the SWDPR 2026) was adopted by the Council on 25 March 2026 and replaces, in full, the South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016 (the SWDP 2016). This appeal was received before the adoption of SWDPR 2026 and as such, at that time it was emerging policy and Policies from the SWDP 2016 were referred to in the decision notice.

I have received copies of the relevant adopted SWDPR 2026 policies and both main parties have had an opportunity to comment on them. I have therefore taken the recently adopted policies into consideration in reaching my decision and have not referred to the previous SWDP 2016 policies.

The main parties do not dispute that the appeal scheme meets the requirements of Class A, Part 16, Schedule 2 of the Order such that it would constitute permitted development, subject to the condition that prior approval must be sought in relation to its siting and appearance.

Therefore, the main issues are: - the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area, including the effect on the setting of the National Landscape; 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 is located within an agricultural field, next to an existing tree and hedge and near to a line of telegraph poles. The site is on a ridge with the land around it falling away providing views towards the site. It is in the open countryside and a predominately rural area. The site is outside of the Malvern Hills National Landscape (the NL) but it forms part of the open countryside around the NL. Views of the [name] are appreciated from the site and the surrounding area and I, therefore, consider the appeal site to be part of the setting of the NL.

In determining this appeal, I am required to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape and give great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty.

The proposed lattice tower would be a greater height than the existing tree and of a much more urban and industrial appearance than any of the existing features immediately around the site. By reason of its height and engineered form, the structure would be visible in views from the surrounding area. While the lattice design would allow some transparency, and the height has been reduced from a scheme previously refused by the Council, the installation would nonetheless appear as a tall, utilitarian, and incongruous feature in an otherwise open setting.

Tree and vegetation cover would provide only partial and seasonal screening, mostly of the lower section of the tower and the associated infrastructure. Most of the tower, especially the cluster of antenna at the head, would be seen against the sky. Views from the road passing the appeal site would be transient but, from my observations at site, and contrary to the appellant’s photomontages, the mast is visible from some distance away. It would be prominent on the ridge as viewed from the approach to the site and these views would not be fleeting or minimal. Moreover, I saw that the access to [address] Farm is also a Public Right of Way and, consequently, the mast would be highly prominent on the landscape as viewed by walkers along this route. The harm to the character and appearance of the area would be significant.

I acknowledge that the height would ensure that the top of the tower would not project above the ridgeline of the [name] from most viewpoints and that there are a number of viewpoints from where the mast would be restricted. However, it would still be seen within the setting of the NL, especially from the road and the Public Right of Way. The proposal would be prominent and obtrusive in these views and harmfully detract from the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the NL. The harm to the setting of the NL would be moderate, however, I ascribe great weight to this harm and the development would not conserve nor enhance landscape and scenic beauty.

I noted the presence of the electricity pylons in the wider area, though from my observations, where the proposed tower would be most prominent it would not be read alongside the pylons and, therefore, the presence of these structures would not reduce the visual effect of the proposal. Albeit only visible from some vantage points, the siting, scale, and appearance of the proposal would be visually harmful to the character and appearance of the rural area, the open countryside, and the setting of the NL. The lack of harm from other viewpoints would not mitigate the harm from the affected area.

For the above reasons, the siting and appearance of the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the National Landscape. The development would, therefore, not further the purpose of the NL and would conflict with Policy SWDPR 31 of the SWDPR 2026 which seeks to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the National Landscape and seeks to ensure that development is sensitively sited and designed to avoid, or minimise, adverse impacts.

For the same reasons, the proposal would also conflict with Policies PL1 and PL7 of the Malvern Hills National Landscape Management Plan 2025-2030 which, taken together, also require proposals that are likely to impact on, or create change in, the landscape of the NL to further the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of it.

The appellant’s alternative site assessment indicates that there are constraints associated with other locations within the search area. The information refers to ten discounted alternative options, numbered 1 to 10. Reasons are given as to why they have been discounted and these include the effect on the NL, the lack of coverage to the target areas, lack of power connectivity and not being supported by the Parish Council.

[name] note that two of the discounted sites are within the NL, I do not have sufficient compelling evidence that these sites would be more harmful than the appeal site. The NL Management Team advised that sites within the NL should not be automatically discounted and the appellant’s own evidence shows other masts within the NL. From my observations Site [address] to a group of farm buildings and associated structures and in an area where the electricity pylons are more prominent in the landscape. Site 8, although within the NL may be less visually harmful than the appeal site.

The appellant also states that there are no existing buildings/structures available and that two masts, one in Welland and one in [name] would constitute proliferation. However, I have not been provided with details of the extent of buildings or other structures that could support the proposal, including the church in Welland which interested parties advise has previously obtained permission for telecommunications equipment to be installed. There is, therefore, limited information before me on alternative buildings, as is required by the Framework.

Moreover, contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the provision of a mast in each village may not constitute proliferation of masts given the distance between the villages and the intervening features. [name] accept that mobile phone providers have not invested in the area, I have no compelling evidence that a two mast solution is not economically viable.

The appellant has also referred to six other sites that were presented to the Council at a meeting. However, these sites, and the reasons for discounting them, have not been submitted for consideration as part of the planning application or the appeal submission. I am, therefore, not able to give any consideration to those sites.

Given the above it is unclear why the proposal needs to be sited in the appeal location which would be within the setting of the NL and within an area of open countryside with distant and close views. It is also not clear why all of the discounted sites are considered more harmful than the appeal site and whether other alternative sites are available or not.

I am, therefore, not convinced that the search area has been properly explored. The evidence before me is not compelling and I cannot be sure that the appeal scheme is the most suitable in terms of its siting and appearance. I consider that limited information has been provided for the discounting of other sites, including the use of existing buildings/structures. There is little evidence before me to support assertions that other options are unavailable, unsuitable, or more harmful.

The Framework establishes that the need for an electronic communications system should not be questioned and evidence has been provided that the appeal site and surrounding roads have limited mobile signal. Moreover, the signal within the villages of Welland, [name] and [name] is also limited. The need for improved mobile network infrastructure in the area is clear and I have no evidence to dispute the need.

Nevertheless, the appeal before me is some distance from the villages and in an area with limited housing. Although the appeal proposal would provide some benefit to the area and even though I am aware of the level of local support, including support of the two Parish Councils, I do not have compelling evidence that the appeal would provide the level of coverage to the villages that is assumed by the support. The information provided by the appellant, relating to meetings with senior officers at the Council does not provide any certainty on this matter and the images indicating coverage area suggest that the coverage for the villages would not be significantly improved.

The evidence of restricted coverage and capacity is at odds with the Framework’s emphasis on extending and future-proofing digital connectivity that would result in economic growth and greater social inclusion. Additionally, the proposal would support economic and social objectives and deliver benefits which may include improved support for home working, farming, enabling smart devices and services, as well as supporting future advances. The social and economic importance of 5G technology is also outlined in the other documents referred to by the appellant. From the evidence before me the appeal proposal would extend the 5G coverage in the area and facilitate improvements in social and economic well-being. These benefits align with the objective of the development plan, the Framework, and the NL Management Plan, to promote high-quality communications infrastructure.

I also note the support of the two Parish Councils, local letters of support and the support of the Council Digital Infrastructure & [name], for high quality communications, the overall improvements that enhanced mobile communications brings to an area and that access to advanced, high quality, reliable communication infrastructure is considered essential for economic growth and social well-being. Such factors weigh strongly in favour of the proposal.

However, the general benefits of new masts have effectively been recognised by the grant of permission under Article 3(1) of the Order. Consequently, I must balance these general benefits against the requirement for equipment to be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate, as well as the overarching imperative in the Framework for development to achieve well-designed places for the long term. I cannot be certain that the benefits would be to such an extent that would justify significant weight to be given to them. In this case, the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area and the NL is not outweighed by the broad support for enhanced and improved telecommunications infrastructure.

The appeal before me is, therefore, materially different to the appeals at Moor (Dis) Quarry1 and at Hoggs Hill2 in which the Inspectors were satisfied that there were no alternative sites available and, therefore, gave greater weight to the benefits of the development than the harm to the NL.

In summary, the development proposed would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, including moderate harm to the setting of the NL, and I am not satisfied that less harmful alternatives have been properly explored. I do not have compelling evidence that the harm would be outweighed by the public benefits. For these reasons I find the siting and appearance of the proposed development to be unacceptable and in conflict with Policy SWDPR 36 of the SWDPR 2026 which requires telecommunication proposals to determine the need for telecommunications technology/equipment. The harm would, therefore, not be outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking into account alternatives.

The issue of the provision of back-up power to the mast has been raised in both main parties’ evidence and by interested parties. However, this would be a matter for the developer of the site to ensure that there is means to power the mast in the event of outages or network failures, as required by the Government guidance quoted by the appellant. This is not a matter which weighs in favour or against the development.

Interested parties have also raised other concerns including, but not limited to, matters of health and wellbeing. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not sought to explore these matters further. 1 APP/U2750/W/24/3342345 2 APP/C9499/W/23/3323272

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.