Appeal 6004382

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 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; 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 on a grassed area between [site address] and a footpath leading from the junction with [address]. [site address] , at this point, is a dual carriageway but also has a small off shoot which serves as an access road to a group of houses. The proposed mast and associated cabinets would be situated between the two parts of [site address] and between the trees near to the dual carriageway and the path to the houses. The dual carriageway is highly trafficked and is a principal route in and out of [name]. The off-shoot is a no-through road and only serves the dwellings and as pedestrian access between local businesses.

The grassed area and trees provide a green and verdant character to the area immediately around the appeal site. The presence of the houses and businesses on the same side of the road provide some urbanisation. Nevertheless, even with the houses, existing businesses and HS2 compound on the opposite side of the road, the area has an open and rural character and appearance.

Existing tall street furniture in the immediate area consists of street lighting columns and wooden telephone cable poles which are located on both sides of the road and are all of a slim design and consistent height, similar in height to the trees and houses. There are taller lighting structures down the centreline of the dual carriageway, nevertheless, these are also slim structures and consistent in height. Lower-level street furniture, including junction lighting, road signs and bollards, are spread around the area but do not result in a cluttered street scene.

The proposal is for a 17.5 metre monopole with associated ground-based apparatus. The appellant’s efforts in reducing the height from 20 metre to 17.5 metre are noted. I also note that the Order allows for a height of up to 25. Nevertheless, the proposed mono pole would be a greater height than any of the existing street furniture in the area and whilst it has been designed to be the least intrusive, simplistic, and as narrow as possible, it would still be wider, especially at its top.

Furthermore, the monopole would extend above the height of the trees which sit between the site and [site address] and also higher than the trees within the garden of the nearest residential property, The Firs. The trees in the garden would provide a backdrop to views of the monopole from the dual carriageway and the smaller trees would help screen the equipment cabinets. However, the height of the trees between the site and the dual carriageway would not sufficiently reduce the monopole’s visual effect on the street scene, as can be seen in the submitted photomontages. [name] appreciate that the monopole must be taller than other objects in the vicinity to avoid frequency interference, it would be significantly out of scale prominent and would be prominent and obtrusive in these views. It would, therefore, harmfully detract from the character and appearance of the area.

The garden trees would provide some screening of the proposal from the garden of The Firs, and I accept that the monopole is not directly in front of any residential properties. However, the occupants of this property and the other houses on the small section of [site address] currently have trees as their outlook to break up the views of the dual carriageway and the proposed monopole would be appreciably higher than the trees. There would also be direct views from the windows in the rear elevation of The Firs which would not be screened.

The siting and appearance of the proposed monopole would stand out on the street scene as an incongruous and alien feature, not respecting the existing scale of the area. [name] note that the proposal is to be finished in a dark green colour it would not, contrary to the appellant’s assertion, be of a design solution that is suitable for the site and the design would not mitigate the harmful effect on the character of the area.

There is an existing lattice mast on the nearby Bradnocks Marsh Business Centre, a short distance from the appeal site. That structure is large and prominent in views from the surrounding area. The appeal proposal is to replace one of the operator’s facilities from the lattice mast but not to remove it. That structure would remain and the proposal would be in addition to it. This would result in two masts being seen close to each other and, in some instances, in the same view. The removal of one operator from the existing mast would not provide any visual benefit.

For the above reasons, the siting and appearance of the monopole would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would, insofar as it is relevant, be contrary to Policies P14 and P15 of the Solihull Local Plan, December 2013, which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development protects and enhances the amenity of existing occupiers of houses, including the visual amenity, requires development for electronic communications to consider the sensitivity of the environment, and seeks to ensure that all development conserves and enhances local character.

The Framework advises that advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. It also outlines that the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology, should be supported.

The proposal is for a new monopole to replace one of the operator’s facilities accommodated on the existing lattice mast. The existing mast would be retained and continue to serve the other operators housed on it. I acknowledge that the siting of the proposal is based on the need to retain and improve coverage and capacity to the surrounding area, including the provision of 5G services and, therefore, the siting of the proposal is required within areas where the service is used. The continued coverage and capacity is a material consideration and I have no reason to doubt that there is a need for continued coverage, albeit that interested parties have queried the information.

I have already found that the proposed development, through its siting and appearance, would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area for the reasons given. The other options that might be available are therefore an important consideration.

The appellant’s alternative site assessment has assessed a range of other options and indicates that there are constraints associated with other new mast locations within the search area. The information refers to twenty-seven discounted alternative options, numbered D1 to D27. Reasons are given as to why they have been discounted and these include the height and structure of existing buildings, lack of space, lack of screening, being more visible than the appeal site and proximity to the railway line.

Additional information has been provided with the appeal in relation to alternative sites within and near the Business Centre, garden centre, and wood shavings business site, amongst others. With regard to the garden centre the buildings on site would not be suitable for the construction of a roof mounted mast, the grassed area near the access and the car park would be visually intrusive and the landowner is also retaining this land for future expansions, moreover, the car park itself is required for parking. I am, therefore, satisfied that there is no land available within or around the garden centre that would be a more suitable site than the appeal site.

The wood shavings business building is also not suitable for a roof mounted structure and the yard area is fully utilised for storage, vehicle manoeuvring, and parking. Furthermore, the appellant has drawn my attention to a previous planning permission to redevelop vacant land within the wood shavings site for a new workshop. As with the garden centre I am satisfied that there is no available alternative within the wood shavings site.

With regard to Bradnocks Marsh Business Centre I saw at my visit that there is very limited space that is not already used by buildings and associated storage, manoeuvring, and parking. None of the buildings would be capable of accommodating a roof mounted structure and there is no space for an additional mast without harming the businesses on the site.

The appellant has also advised that the existing lattice mast could not be upgraded to support the proposed antennas as it is not owned by the appellant, it already accommodates three other operators and that there would need to be horizontal separation between the antennas to avoid technical interference. Furthermore, the appellant has placed significant weight on the proximity of the mast to the railway line and the requirement for approval from [name] to either extend the existing mast upwards or to replace it.

The Framework advises that for new telecommunication base stations such as the proposal, applicants should explore the possibility of erecting antennas on existing masts. Even if I accept that consent would be required from [name], I have no compelling evidence that this would not be forthcoming or that it would take the length of time suggested by the appellant. I also do not have sufficient evidence that the existing lattice mast is not structurally capable of being extended or that the foundations would not support an extension. I, therefore, cannot be certain that the existing lattice mast would not provide a suitable alternative to the appeal proposal. This alternative is not vague or inchoate and I cannot be certain that it has no real prospect of coming about. In coming to this view, I have had regard to the caselaw quoted by the appellant1 and find that there are material differences between the consideration of the existing lattice mast and the alternative scheme proposed in that judgment.

There is, therefore, insufficient compelling evidence before me on the alternative of utilising the existing mast, as is required by the Framework. 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 1 [name], R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2024] EWHC 2535 (Admin) suitable in terms of its siting and appearance. Insufficient information has been provided for the discounting of other sites, specifically the mast sharing option. There is not compelling evidence to support the assertion that this is unavailable, unsuitable, or more harmful.

In summary, the development proposed would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and 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 the harm would not be outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed.

The appellant has provided information to show compliance with the International Commission on [name] (ICNIRP) guidelines. I therefore have no reason to dispute the specification and the height of the proposed monopole. These considerations also weigh in the proposal’s favour.

However, the recent Court of Appeal ruling in [name] v Cheltenham Borough Council made clear that, the potential effect of electromagnetic fields on medical implants is a different matter from the effect on the general health of the public at large. The judgment confirms that compliance with ICNIRP guidelines remains an important part of the consideration of proposals for telecommunications masts, but it does not remove the need to engage with material planning considerations that arise from the siting, relative to nearby receptors, including whether the operation of the proposal could expose members of the public to levels or effects not addressed by those guidelines.

The risk of exposure to residents, specifically people with medical implants, has been raised by interested parties. Further information was, therefore, sought from the appellant on this matter. The appellant’s final response on this matter advises that the public exclusion zone (PEZ) is at the same height as the antenna and would, therefore, be well above the height of the nearest neighbouring property. Even without a plan showing the PEZ, I am confident that public access to any areas of potential exceedance would be prevented and that the associated risk to health would be minimised.

For the above reasons, based on the information available to me it has not been demonstrated that the harm to the character and appearance of the area is outweighed by the need to site the installation in this location and the other benefits, even when taken cumulatively.

Interested parties have also raised other concerns. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not sought to explore these matters further.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.