Appeal 6006834

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of development given on the application form in the banner heading above. However, in so doing, I have removed text which is not a description of the development proposed.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), deemed planning permission is granted for development by, or on behalf of, an electronic communications code operator, consisting of the installation, alteration or replacement of any electronic communications apparatus. This is subject to certain limitations and conditions.

In summary, and insofar as is pertinent to this appeal, development is not permitted if, in the case of the installation of an antenna on electronic communications apparatus on a building on article 2(3) land; the height of any antenna other than dish antenna to be installed would exceed 3 metres, or the number of such antennas which have been installed on the building since 21 August 2013 would exceed 3.

The main issue is whether the proposed development can be constructed with deemed planning permission as ‘permitted development’ in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO.

[site address] is located within the [site address] Conservation Area and therefore the interpretation under the GPDO means it is on Article 2(3) land. There is presently no electronic communications apparatus on the roof of the building.

The proposed development, as set out in the description of development and shown on the proposed plans, would mean that there would be 6 antenna installed on electronic communications apparatus on the roof of the building. The installation of more than 3 antenna on electronic communications apparatus on the building would exceed that permitted by paragraph A.1(2)(f) of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO (as summarised above).

I note that the appellant considers that the Council have conflated the use of the word ‘or’ with the word ‘and’ in its determination. However, the GPDO is clear in explaining that breaching the height restriction, which this proposal does not, or (my emphasis) the number of antenna, which this proposal does; is cause for the development to exceed GPDO limits. Breaching any one of the restrictions in a relevant class of development means that the development cannot be constructed with deemed permission.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal cannot be permitted development as it would not comply with paragraph A.1(2)(f) of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO. This is due to the 6 antenna proposed exceeding the limit of 3 antenna set out at A.1(2)(f)(ii).

The consideration of siting and appearance relate to the prior approval stage, a follow-on condition stage under paragraph A.3(4) of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO. However, given that the proposal is not permitted development, it is not necessary to consider those prior approval matters.

I note that the appellant has raised concerns regarding the manner in which the Council administered the application. The application was received by the Council on 1 August and determined on 24 September and this is within the 56 day period prescribed in the GPDO. Therefore, the validity of the decision is not in dispute. Other matters relating to the conduct of the Council are beyond my remit to consider for the purposes of this appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.