Appeal 6004849

The appeal is allowed and 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 The installation of a 20m monopole supporting 6 no. antennas and 2 no. 0.3m dishes, 2 no. cabinets, associated ancillary equipment and development ancillary thereto at [name] of [site address] , [name] to a [name] and in [name] to the Junction with [address], Liverpool in accordance with the application 25PT/2630 and the details submitted with it including plan nos 100 [name], 201 [name], and 301 [name].

I have taken the address from the Council’s decision notice as it is a more accurate description of the location of the appeal site. I have, however, omitted the postcode as it has been suggested by an interested party that it is incorrect, and it is not necessary to identify the appeal site as the plans clearly do so.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO), 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 GPDO do not require regard to be had to the policies of the development plan. Therefore, I have had regard to the policies of the development only insofar as they are a material consideration relevant to matters of siting and appearance.

Photomontages have been provided with the appeal documents which were not before the Council when it made its decision. As the proposed installation has not been amended and the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on these images, I consider that no one would be prejudiced if I accept them at this stage. I have therefore taken them into account in reaching my

The main issues are the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance of the area, including surrounding trees, and on the significance of designated heritage assets.

The proposed installation would be sited within a small, mainly grassed, parcel of land containing a bus stop, traffic and road signs, and a circular walled area containing a mature tree which, according to the evidence before me, was the site of a scheduled ancient monument, the [name], now relocated elsewhere. Streetlights are regularly spaced along the highway.

The appeal site is close to Calderstones Park (the Park) and the secondary entrance into it. The Park is enclosed by a stone wall and tall trees which in combination with the wide grassed and treed central reservation on [site address] , which is designated green infrastructure, creates an open and verdant character that provides a break from the otherwise built-up surroundings.

At 20 metres high, the proposed monopole would be significantly taller than the nearby streetlights, but marginally lower than the surrounding trees. Based on my observations and as demonstrated by the photomontages, the lower section of the monopole would be seen with the trees as a backdrop within many views. In addition, the tree canopies would soften its presence and effect in all directions. For these reasons, and in the context of the existing street furniture, the relatively slender and compact design of the monopole and the modest scale of the cabinets would ensure that they do not stand out as isolated or unduly obtrusive structures.

The Council has raised concerns that the surrounding trees will cause signal interference that will result in future pressure to carry out pruning works. However, the appellant has stated that the siting of the proposed installation would ensure that there would be no requirement to undertake any pruning works, either at construction stage or in the future, and the Council has not provided robust evidence that contradicts such a statement. Furthermore, I note the comments of the Council’s Street Tree Officer that if it is confirmed that tree interference is not anticipated, which has been provided by the appellant, future pruning requests could then be resisted.

Therefore, based on the information before me, I do not consider that the proposed installation would result in any future works that would unduly harm the trees in the vicinity of the site. As such I consider that the contribution the trees make to the recreational value of the green infrastructure and the character and appearance of the area would not be harmfully eroded.

Within the heart of Calderstones Park is the [name] listed [address] and the [name] listed Stables to [address]. [address] is a two-storey building, dated 1828, with 10 bays which form a symmetrical composition round a recessed central bay. The Stables are two-storey in height with nine bays, the central bays projecting forward. The significance of these listed buildings, in the context of this appeal, derives from their relationship to the surrounding parkland which forms part of their setting.

The appeal site is some distance from the listed buildings and outside of the parkland. Based on the evidence before me, including my observations on my visit, the site does not have a close historical relationship with the listed building, and does not contribute to their significance. In my view, the proposed installation would not harm the way that the listed buildings are experienced, and their setting would be preserved.

The stone walls around Calderstones Park delineate the parkland to [address], thereby adding to its special interest. I note that the Council’s Heritage Officer considers such walls are curtilage listed structures. In the absence of any evidence that suggests that the walls were constructed on or after 1 July 1948 and based on my observations, I agree. The walls, therefore, are classified as curtilage listed under Section 1(5) (b) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Accordingly, their preservation carries the same considerable weight and importance as the listed [address] and Stables.

The proposed installation would be physically separated from the walls by the carriageway and pavements to [address] and, due to the slender form of the monopole and modest size of the cabinets, the curtilage listed walls would still be seen in views across the site towards the parkland. For these reasons, the proposed installation would not materially harm the way that the walls are experienced. Furthermore, the historical relationship between the walls, the listed [address] and stables and associated parkland, would be unaffected. Consequently, I find that the significance and special interest of the curtilage listed walls would be preserved.

I therefore conclude that the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including surrounding trees, and would preserve the setting of designated heritage assets. Insofar as they are relevant to siting and appearance, the proposal would accord with policies STP4, HD1, UD1, GI1 and GI9 of the Liverpool Local Plan (LP), adopted January 2022.

Concerns have been raised about potential effects on health. However, the appellant has provided a certificate to confirm that the proposal has been designed to comply with the guidelines published by the International Commission on [name] (ICNIRP). In these circumstances, the NPPF advises that health safeguards are not something which a decision-maker should determine. No sufficiently authoritative evidence has been provided to indicate that the ICNIRP guidelines would not be complied with or that a departure from national policy would be justified.

I acknowledge the concern that has been expressed by interested parties regarding the implications of the proposed infrastructure on highway safety. However, no objections have been received from the Local Highways Authority, and in the absence of any firm evidence to the contrary I have no reason to conclude that the proposal will cause such harm.

Although concerns have been raised about the impact of the proposed infrastructure on property values, this is a matter that falls beyond the scope of the prior approval process to which this appeal relates.

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 agree 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.

I have had regard to the Council’s suggested condition relating to archaeology. However, there is no express provision in the GPDO to impose such a condition. Furthermore, based on the evidence before me, I do not consider that the suggested condition is so fundamental that without it, it would be necessary to dismiss the appeal.

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