Appeal 6005685

The appeal is dismissed.

The provisions under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO 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, having regard to the policies of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only insofar as they are material to the matters of siting and appearance.

The main issues are the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed telecommunications installation on i) pedestrian accessibility and convenience; ii) the character and appearance of the area; and iii) if any harm would occur, whether this would be outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking into account any suitable alternatives.

The appeal site is located on the footway at the junction of [address] and [address], in close proximity to a primary school, a zebra crossing, local retail uses and a bus route. The evidence before me indicates that this location functions as a well-used desire line and informal gathering space, particularly at peak school times when parents and children congregate in the vicinity of the school entrance and crossing points.

The proposal would introduce a 20 metre streetworks pole together with multiple cabinets within the footway. This would reduce the effective width of the footway at certain points, with pinch points of around 2.0 metres identified.

I have had regard to the Leeds Transport Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which identifies that wider footways, typically around 3.0 metres, are desirable in areas of high pedestrian activity such as those adjacent to schools. However, the SPD must be read as a whole and recognises that utilities apparatus may be accommodated within existing streets, subject to maintaining sufficient width for pedestrian movement.

In this regard, a clear width of around 2.0 metres may, in principle, be sufficient to allow wheelchair users to pass and to ensure basic accessibility. Nevertheless, the acceptability of such a width is highly context-specific, depending on the functional characteristics and intensity of use of the space.

The appellant submits that the available footway width would be significantly greater, indicating a gap of around 3.8 metres between the carriageway edge and the proposed apparatus. However, even if a greater overall width exists at parts of the site, the relevant consideration is the effective and useable width available to pedestrians, taking into account the position of the mast and cabinets, existing street furniture, and the way in which the space is used in practice. In this respect, the proposal would introduce localised narrowing and obstruction within an area of complex pedestrian activity, and it is these functional constraints, rather than any theoretical overall width, which are determinative.

The evidence from the school and local residents indicates that the appeal site lies within an area of concentrated pedestrian activity where users do not simply pass through but also gather, wait and interact. The presence of a nearby crossing, retail uses and access points further contributes to a more complex pattern of movement, including children, pushchairs and groups moving simultaneously.

The introduction of fixed infrastructure at this location would reduce the flexibility of the use of the space by pedestrians, introduce an additional obstruction within an already active environment, and increase the likelihood of conflict between pedestrians, particularly at peak times. This is materially different from a situation where a reduced width occurs along a simple through route. No detailed assessment of pedestrian movements or peak-time conditions has been provided to demonstrate that such impacts would not occur.

Taking all of the above into account, I conclude that the siting of the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on pedestrian accessibility and convenience, and would fail to demonstrate compliance with the requirement under paragraph A.2(1)(d) of the GPDO, which requires that development does not impede pedestrian passage having regard to the needs of all users.

Although not determinative, the proposal also conflicts with the objectives of Policy T2 of the [name] ([name] 2019) and saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), insofar as they seek to ensure safe and convenient access for all users.

The appeal site lies within a mixed-use suburban environment characterised by residential development, open space, local retail uses and a range of street furniture. The streetscape includes vertical elements such as lighting columns, signage and trees, and there is variation in building heights and spatial openness.

The proposed monopole would be approximately 20 metres in height and would be taller than nearby street furniture. It would therefore be visible and would introduce a new vertical feature into the street scene. However, it would have a relatively slender, functional form typical of modern telecommunications infrastructure and would be viewed within an environment that already accommodates a variety of utilitarian features.

[name] recognise that the proposal would be more prominent than surrounding street furniture, the mixed character, the presence of existing vertical elements, and the utilitarian nature of the installation would allow it to be read as part of the wider urban environment rather than as an incongruous or visually harmful addition to the street scene.

Furthermore, the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable effects on the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers in terms of overbearing impact, given the separation distances and its slender profile.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would accord with Policies P10 and P12 of the [name] and saved Policy GP5 of the UDP in this regard.

The proposal forms part of a replacement telecommunications installation necessitated by the loss of an existing site. The appellant explains that the siting of telecommunications infrastructure is constrained by operational requirements, including the need to maintain network coverage, avoid interference with other installations and respond to topographical conditions. A sequential approach to site selection has been undertaken, considering site sharing, existing structures and ground-based options within the defined search area. This attracts some weight in support of the proposal.

However, the key issue is whether it has been demonstrated that the installation must be sited in the particular location proposed, and that no less harmful alternative exists within the search area.

Although alternative sites have been considered, the supporting evidence is limited in its technical depth. In particular, there is no robust comparative analysis demonstrating why alternative locations that may give rise to less conflict with pedestrian movement could not reasonably be accommodated within the operational requirements. Nor is there substantive evidence to demonstrate how variations in siting would materially affect network performance.

The proposal would place infrastructure within a part of the highway that serves an important pedestrian function, rather than in a location where the interactions with pedestrians would be less pronounced. Having regard to my findings on pedestrian movement and convenience, I am not persuaded that the proposed siting represents the most appropriate or least harmful option.

Accordingly, whilst I accept that alternative sites may be limited, the evidence does not demonstrate that the specific siting is necessary so as to outweigh the harm identified.

I have considered the appeal decisions referred to by the appellant. However, each case must be determined on its own merits. In those instances, Inspectors were satisfied that the identified harm was outweighed by operational requirements, particularly where there were no unacceptable impacts on pedestrian movement.

In this case, my findings turn on the effect on pedestrian accessibility within a well-used part of the highway, associated with a school and local facilities. For the reasons given, I have found that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the safe and convenient movement of pedestrians. The appeal decisions cited do not therefore alter my overall conclusion.

I have noted the appellant’s references to the economic and social benefits of modern telecommunications infrastructure and the wider national policy support for digital connectivity. Advanced and reliable communications infrastructure is clearly important to economic growth and social well-being.

However, planning permission for the proposed development is granted by the provisions of the GPDO, subject only to a prior approval process in respect of siting and appearance. The principle of the development, and the general policy support for telecommunications infrastructure, are therefore already embodied within the GPDO.

Accordingly, the determination of this appeal is confined to the effects of the proposal in terms of its siting and appearance. It is not the role of the decision maker in a prior approval application to reassess those wider benefits or apply a general planning balance. Thus, whilst I have had regard to the appellant’s submissions, the wider benefits of the proposal do not alter my findings in respect of the main issues.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.