Appeal 6004488

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for 25m high [name] on 5.6x5.6x1.2m deep concrete base, with 6No. [name] at 30°/120°/210° & 4No. 600Ø Dishes; RRUs, [name] and BOBs to be fixed to support poles and associated works at [site address] in accordance with the application 25/06946/DTM and the details submitted with it including plan nos.: 002 Site Location Plan; 150 Proposed Site Plan; 250 Proposed Site Elevation.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO 2015), under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, paragraphs A.3(4) and A.3(7) 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 several development plan policies in its decision notice. However, the principle of development is established by the GPDO and the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO do not require regard be had to the development plan. I have had regard to the policies of the development plan only in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

The appeal proposal would replace existing telecommunications equipment currently installed on the Festival Foods Ltd building, which is subject to a ‘Notice to Quit’. The Council has not questioned the functional need to maintain network coverage in this area, and there is no dispute between the parties on this point. However, the need for the development does not lessen the requirement to assess the proposal solely on its siting and appearance, which forms the basis of my determination.

It therefore follows that the main issue is the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is located at the south-east corner of [site address] football ground, on maintained grassland adjacent to a marked football pitch. The surrounding area is characterised by a varied mix of land uses and built form, including terraced and semi-detached housing, commercial premises, allotments and the sports ground itself. The margins of the sports ground are largely defined by a high boundary wall and in places by boundary planting and groups of trees, contributing to a relatively layered and visually varied setting.

Built form is mixed, with predominantly single- and two-storey buildings, together with occasional three-storey structures including the [name], [address] [name] and nearby Festival Foods Ltd. The street scene contains several vertical elements, including lamp columns, telegraph poles and, although a little distance from the appeal site, the prominent brick chimney to the rear of the Festival Foods Ltd site.

Considered collectively, development in the surrounding area lacks a consistent architectural form or unified townscape composition, resulting in a varied and eclectic character. Furthermore, while predominantly residential in character, the commercial properties on [address] and [address] generate a busy and dynamic environment.

The proposed lattice tower would be visible within the street scene, including in some longer‐distance views, and from several nearby residential properties. However, due to its siting, close-range views would be limited, and the mast would not be unduly prominent. Although it would be taller than surrounding buildings, height alone is not determinative. Given its slender, open form, its separation from immediate street frontages, the open nature of the football ground and the absence of a consistent prevailing ridge height or skyline, the structure would not appear excessively tall, overbearing or incongruous when experienced within the wider townscape.

The presence of boundary trees and vegetation forms part of the existing visual environment and contributes to the layered and varied setting in which the lattice mast would be perceived. I accept that such vegetation is deciduous and not within the appellant’s control and cannot be relied upon as permanent screening. Nevertheless, even allowing for seasonal variation, this context would temper the mast’s visual presence and largely prevent it from being perceived against an exposed or uncluttered skyline. While the structure would have a utilitarian appearance characteristic of telecommunications development, it would not appear visually discordant in an area already influenced by commercial premises, service infrastructure and functional structures, and would be read as purposeful rather than alien.

I therefore conclude that the siting and appearance of the development would minimise its visual impact so far as practicable and would not result in material harm to the character or appearance of the area.

As there would be no material harm arising from the siting and appearance of the proposal, there is no requirement to demonstrate that preferable alternative sites exist. In the context of a prior approval application under Part 16 of the GPDO, the absence of more detailed alternatives analysis does not justify refusal where the proposal is otherwise acceptable on its merits.

In respect of health, a declaration has been submitted confirming compliance with ICNIRP guidelines, and national policy is clear that it is not necessary for me to consider health effects further where compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines has been demonstrated.

Temporary effects during construction, including potential disruption to access arrangements and use of the football ground, arise from the carrying out of the development in this location, and do not give rise to unacceptable impacts in terms of the siting and appearance of the completed installation, which is the basis on which prior approval must be determined. While the installation would also give rise to occasional access for maintenance, such activity is likely to be limited in frequency and scale and would not give rise to unacceptable effects in terms o the siting of the development. Assertions that works may already have begun are a matter for the Council and do not affect my assessment of the proposal before me. As such, these points do not alter my conclusions.

Concerns have also been raised that the proposal has been directed to this location because of the characteristics of the surrounding area. However, such matters relate to the applicant’s choice of site rather than to the effect of the siting and appearance of the development itself. I have assessed the proposal on its merits and found no unacceptable harm arising from its siting or appearance in this location.

Any planning permission granted for the development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A is subject to conditions set out in [name].3(9), A.3(11) and A.2(2), which specify that the development must, except to the extent that the local planning authority otherwise agrees in writing, be carried out in accordance with the details submitted with the application, must begin not later than the expiration of 5 years beginning with the date on which the local planning authority received the application, and must be removed as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for electronic communications purposes and the land restored to its condition before the development took place.

The Council has suggested an additional planning condition, relating to construction management, be imposed should approval be granted. However, the GPDO 2015 does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions beyond the deemed conditions mentioned above.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.