Appeal 6004939

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 3 no. antennas and 1 no. GPS node located on existing support poles and ancillary development, on the [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/12180/F, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 799746_BRC039_68643_BS0195_M005 Issue B3 - 002 Site Location Plan; 799746_BRC039_68643_BS0195_M005 Issue B3 - 150 Proposed Site Plan; and 799746_BRC039_68643_BS0195_M005 Issue B3 - 250 Proposed Site elevations A.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the City Dock Conservation Area.

The host building is a 2-storey commercial building which, although its footprint is irregular, has a linear form. The roof is flat, but towards the side of the building which faces the [address] / [address] junction there is a rectangular plant room with a brick chimney like structure protruding from the top. The plant room is already used to support a collection of aerials including a tall pole aerial, as well as a series of support poles which are currently not in use. Although clearly functional in form it has some design merit including a double height clock tower.

From the plans, the proposal would take the form of 3 solid box like structures located on 3 of the existing unused support poles, and associated works to link them into the existing equipment cabinet. No part of the proposal would extend beyond the hight of the chimney structure on top of the plant room.

The proposal would be clearly visible from the vicinity of the host building, and it would physically increase the amount of telecommunication paraphernalia on the roof. However, it would be clustered around the functional plant room structure away from the clock tower and read in conjunction with the existing aerials. This would constitute change but, in my mind, would not be of such a quantum as to overwhelm the impact of the clock tower, or obscure the linear form of the host building or its clearly functional and commercial appearance.

Consequently, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host building. It, therefore, complies with [name] BCS21 and Bristol Local Plan: Bristol Central Area Plan Policy BCAP41 insofar as they see high quality development to positively contribute to character and appearance, and Bristol Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (SADM) Policy DM36 insofar as it requires new or upgraded telecommunications equipment and installations to respect character and appearance.

As the appeal site is within the CA special regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) will be had.

The CA’s significance is related to the [name], and the historic dock uses linked to it. The host building along with the surrounding similarly scaled commercial buildings forms the backdrop of [name] with the [address] passing next to it. This area of the CA has a very utilitarian appearance, and the host building is considered a character building within that. This is because it helps to inform the changing face of development along the [name], particularly of the smaller scale commercial uses which sprang up as the docks began to fall out of use. It therefore helps to inform both the character and appearance of this part of the CA.

There are views of the host building across the [name], but these are limited to the clock tower and existing pole aerial above the chimney structure on the plant room. Accordingly, due to the proposal not extending above that chimney structure it is unlikely it would be visible in these longer distance views.

Although the host building is obvious along the [address] and relatively instructive in the significance of this part of the CA, it is functional in form, and part of the functionality relates to the existing aerials. As identified in the first main issue, the proposal is not considered to be a magnitude of change to cause harm to the host building.

Therefore, as the character and appearance of the host building will not be affected, it is found that the impact on the character and appearance of the CA would be neutral, thus ensuring no harm to its significance as a heritage asset. The proposal would therefore comply with the Act and [name] BCS22 as far as it seeks to safeguard heritage assets.

It is recognised the proposal would represent an upgrade of the existing telecommunication system, a position supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). That alternative sites were considered within the area, that the proposal represents an opportunity to share the site with other providers, and that it conforms to the International Commission on [name] guidelines, means the proposal also complies with the other parts of SADM Policy DM36.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans as this provides certainty. I have not found it necessary to impose any further conditions, and the main parties have not suggested any.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.