Appeal 6004415

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted new evidence in the form of a photomontage report. This report would not result in a substantial or fundamental change to result in a different application. The Council has also had the opportunity to comment on the report. Given its nature, the acceptance of this report would not deprive those who should have been consulted of the opportunity of such consultation. I have therefore considered it in determining this appeal.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), 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 Council has referred to Policy SP7 of the Local Plan Section 11 and Policies ENV1 and DM15 of the Local Plan Section 22. The provisions of Class A of the GPDO do not require regard to be had to the development plan. I have had regard to the policies of the development plan and the National Planning Policy 1 Colchester Borough Local Plan 2013 – 2033 Section 1 [name] Section 1 Plan Adopted February 2021 (the Local Plan Section 1) 2 Colchester Borough Local Plan 2017 – 2033 Section 2 [name] 2022 (the Local Plan Section 2) Framework (the Framework) only insofar as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

The main issue is the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character 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 proposed installation would be situated within a farmland field, enclosed to the north by hedgerows and trees marking the boundary. The surrounding area comprises open fields with vegetation, housing, and farm buildings, with the railway line and [name] to the south. Overhead electricity lines cross the area. The site has a rural character, defined by its open setting and limited built development.

The appeal site lies within Colchester Borough Landscape Character Assessment Area A5, the River Colne Valley Slope. The characteristics of the area are identified as including attractive framed and panoramic views of the meandering river channel and associated floodplain from higher points along the valley. I observed far-reaching open views across the countryside during my site visit, where the [name] can be seen. This reflects the characteristics of the River Colne Valley Slope.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)3 concludes that the proposed installation would give rise to negligible overall visual and landscape effects on the wider landscape, with some localised slight to moderate adverse effects. However, these conclusions are brought into doubt by the LVIA’s reliance on vegetation as a key mitigating factor. Insufficient consideration is given to periods when such vegetation may offer reduced or no screening, resulting in more open views and a greater visibility of the proposed installation. Nevertheless, the photomontage report gives the impression of how the proposed installation would appear during autumn and winter.

It is acknowledged that the height of the installation and the scale of the headframe have been reduced from the previously refused scheme. Moreover, in some views, the installation would not be highly visible. However, from several vantage points across the locality, its dominating impact would be experienced. This impact would be particularly evident in short-range views, most notably along [address] and the adjoining footpath, where the development would appear prominent and unavoidable. As seen in viewpoint 2, here it would sit directly within the visual corridor towards the [name] where it would form a conspicuous and visually intrusive feature. Its height and position would draw the eye, interrupting and detracting from views across the [name], undermining the appreciation of this landscape feature. Despite the presence of the rising land in the background, this would do little to reduce the prominence of the installation. 3 Date: 1st September 2025, [name]: 2025/BQF/WIV/010

The proposal would also be conspicuous in longer-distance views. As seen from viewpoint 1, even at a distance, the proposed installation would rise above the landform and tree backdrop, reinforcing its dominant and visually incongruous presence within the rural landscape. While other vertical elements are present, the height and utilitarian design of the proposed installation would render it significantly more prominent than the electricity poles and overhead cables, which are typical of those found within a rural location and are comparatively slender in design and less visually intrusive.

As shown in viewpoint 3, located over 600m away, the upper sections of the installation would clearly project above the horizon, reinforcing its visual prominence. Whilst the existing mast at the temporary site is discernible in some longer-range views, the proposed installation would introduce a markedly broader, bulkier, and more visually dominant structure. Its presence would be more prominent in the landscape. Consequently, the removal of the existing installation would not result in a meaningful or sufficient visual benefit to offset the harm arising from the proposal. Although the proposed installation would be further away from the locally listed farm buildings, any limited benefit arising from this increased separation from these buildings would be outweighed by the broader harm caused to the landscape character.

It is recognised that the height of the installation is required to provide the coverage, and it will not always be possible to camouflage or screen a development of this nature, particularly as they need to be taller than surrounding structures. However, the appeal site occupies a sensitive position within the River Colne Valley Slope, where the landscape has a particular susceptibility to visual intrusion.

I have found that the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would cause harm to the character of the area. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether this is outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking into account any suitable alternatives.

The development is required following a Notice to Quit (NTQ) on the existing mast at the temporary site nearby. The proposed installation would provide replacement coverage and improve 2G and 4G coverage, as well as enabling the introduction of 5G services. The appellant has considered 28 alternative sites, one of which includes the existing temporary site. It is not clear why this would be included if it is subject to an NTQ. The other 27 sites were discounted for various reasons, which include proximity to residential properties, power and gaining access issues, highway safety issues and environmental and heritage constraints. Sufficient reasoning has been provided to discount some of these sites.

However, sites D5, D7 and D21 were discounted on the basis that the proposal would reduce overall parking provision. However, this reasoning is not supported by any evidence or detailed analysis. Limited justification has also been provided for the omission of site D8, which is an existing telecommunications site. Furthermore, it is unclear why ground levels being “too low” would prevent site D16 from delivering the required coverage. Rooftop sites D14 and D15 have been discounted due to their height and design, although the appellant states that a solid structure is required the majority of the time; this implies there could be some exceptions.

Although the Council has not identified alternatives, and it is recognised that the proposal is required to replace coverage lost from the temporary site, from the available information, I am unable to conclude that alternative options for siting the proposal have been fully exhausted, in order to clearly establish that there is a need to site the proposal at this location.

I am mindful that advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being, and planning decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G) and full fibre broadband connections, in line with paragraph 119 of the Framework. While the economic and social benefits of mobile telecommunications, including the replacement and improved coverage, are acknowledged, a balance must be struck with visual amenity. The GPDO limits consideration to siting and appearance, with public benefits already accepted in principle. The evidence does not demonstrate that an absence of suitable alternative sites justifies such harm, and the need for the installation does not, in this case, outweigh the harm.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would have a harmful effect on the character of the area, that is not outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking into account any suitable alternatives. Insofar as they are material considerations, the proposal would conflict with Policy SP7 of the Local Plan Section 1 and Policies ENV1 and DM15 of the Local Plan Section 2. These policies, amongst other things, require development to respond positively to local character and protect and enhance the factors that contribute to valued landscapes.

The appellant refers to several appeal decisions but provides limited detail. Nevertheless, in the Harrow4 and Winchester5 cases, the Inspectors appear to have found that there was a lack of alternative sites, unlike my findings in this case. I am unable to ascertain the location in the Coventry6 case is comparable. I am also not aware of the evidence that was before the Inspector in the Birmingham7 case. Weight given to benefits is a matter of judgement for the decision maker. It has therefore not been demonstrated that these decisions are directly relevant. I have determined this appeal on its own merits and site-specific circumstances.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR 4 APP/M5450/W/21/3287882 5 APP/L1765/W/18/3197522 6 APP/U4610/W/17/3186745 7 APP/P4605/W/19/324191