Brent Council has refused permission for the siting of a 20 metre tall telecommunications mast on green space on Woodcock Hill. The refusal was based on the siting and appearance of the mast:
Although the proposal would bring benefits in terms of technology and communications, its siting, together with its height and appearance in an area of open character, would result in a harmful impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and the surrounding area.
The proposal is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of siting and appearance. Prior Approval is therefore required and refused having regard to Part 16 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended.
It should be noted (as set out below) that some of the issues raised by objectors (see LINK) including CPRE, Friends of Woodcock Park, Northwick Park Residents Association and Cllr Michael Maurice have not been supported in the officers' report. A request to send the application to Planning Committee by Cllr Maurice was refused on the ground that it would delay a decision beyond the statutory period which would have the effect of granting automatic approval - 'deemed consent'.
Nevertheless, the 31 objectors will be pleased with the decision but will note that the applicant can appeal. The refusal on just one major ground (siting and visual appearance, impact on the street scene) could lead to an Appeal.
From the officers' report:
Assessment
This application has been submitted as a prior approval submitted under Part 16 of the GPDO 2015 (as amended). The application therefore requires whether prior approval is required from the Local Planning Authority regarding the siting and appearance of the proposed development.
The proposal meets the requirements as set out in Class A1 of Part 16. However, the siting and appearance is required to be taken into account, as assessed against Condition A.2 Part (1) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).
Appearance, Design and Location:
Paragraph 119 of the NPPF (2023) emphasises that sites for radio and telecoms masts should be kept to a minimum. Where new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.
Brent's Local Plan policy DMP1 states that 'development will be acceptable provided it is retaining existing blue and green infrastructure including water ways, open space, high amenity trees and landscape features and providing appropriate additions or enhancements where possible'. An appropriate addition may be 'of a location, use, concentration, siting, layout, scale, type, density, materials, detailing and design that provides high levels of internal and external amenity and complements the locality'.
The current application is primarily concerned with the installation of a 20 metres high monopole supporting associated antennae, transmission dishes and equipment cabinets to the site.
The application site is designated as SINC Grade II (Wealdstone Brook) that constitutes an area of protected open space and therefore is also of ecological value. The location is considered to act as a physical connection between the green corridors in the area, which contribute to sustaining biodiversity in the area. Although an Ecology Report was not submitted, the council’s Ecology Officer has reviewed the application and considered that, whilst located close to the SINC, no direct impact on the watercourse is likely to occur. The Ecology Officer states however that the construction works should follow best practice and maintain a no work zone within a minimum 10m buffer from the watercourse.
With regard to its siting, the proposed development would be positioned to the centre of this strip of land, which is short grassland surrounding by trees between Woodcock Hill, Woodgrange Avenue and Retreat Close. It would be located to the south of Wealdstone Brook and, on the opposite side, a row of family dwelling houses. The proposed development, particularly the mast, due to its height and location, would be visible from long views across the area, whereas the cabinet would primarily be seen from Woodcock Hill. The site is located on an open section of road, as explained above, where a portion of lawn provides a clear view, unobstructed by street furniture that might have otherwise helped to reduce the perceived size of the development. Additionally, while there are trees on the site, they would not provide a reliable or consistent screen for the structure. This is due to seasonal changes that affect the trees' foliage and the sizes of the trees, which are insufficient to offer permanent coverage.
Based on the assessment provided, the proposed telecommunications equipment would indeed create a visually incongruous and overly dominant structure that would negatively affect the visual appeal, character, and overall appearance of the streetscape and the broader area. Consequently, the proposal is considered to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding streetscene, and it is recommended for refusal on these grounds.
Transport Considerations:
The applicant proposes to locate the equipment approx. 6.8m from the back of the footway. The equipment will be sited on the riverbank of Wealdstone Brook, rather on the footway.
The location of the equipment, being clear of the Public Highway, does not therefore give rise to any highway and pedestrian safety concerns. The doors of the equipment would not open out onto the Public Highway. The transport team has also advised that for any maintenance, vehicles would not be able to stop on Woodcock Hill due to the restricted parking, so vehicles would need to stop further afield. The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the safe use of the public highway at this location and therefore considered acceptable in transport terms.
Tree Considerations
The trees on the site are not subject of a TPO or growing within a designated Conservation Area, however they are growing directly adjacent to Wealdstone Brook which is a site of importance for nature conservation (SINC).
The application is accompanied by a Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment incorporating Arboricultural Method Statement by ACS Consulting. The survey identifies several trees such as T1 a category A Oak tree, T2 a category B Prunus and G1 a category B group of trees growing adjacent to the brook. There is also T3 a category C Prunus tree. The RPA of all trees and the current canopy area are all protected by the proposed development and associated Arboricultural Method Statement. T1 particularly does have scope to grow quite significantly, however its current canopy is taken account of in the proposals. Confirmation has been provided by the applicant that hardstanding is not needed in
relation to site access for maintenance purposes. Should the application be approved, an Informative would be attached to remind the applicant that the installation should fully comply with the Arboricultura Method Statement in terms of protection measures including fencing
Non-ionizing radiation (NIR) considerations
Paragraph 122 of the NPPF (2023) specifies (in relation to communication infrastructure), that Local Planning Authorities must determine applications on planning grounds and should not determine health safeguards if the proposal meets International Commission guidelines for public exposure. A certificate has been supplied stating that the equipment complies with the requirements of the radio frequency public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP) as expressed in EU Council recommendation of 12th July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields up to 300 GHz. The remit of the local authority is to ensure that a certificate has been provided and as this has been done, health considerations are not further considered.
Equalities
In line with the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Council must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity, as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. In making this recommendation, regard has been given to the Public Sector Equality Duty and the relevant protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation).
Other matters
As noted above, neighbouring occupiers did not receive their notification letters and a Ward Cllr requested that the application be considered at planning committee. In this instance, because the General Permitted Development Order requires that a determination is made before the expiry of 56 days beginning with the date on which the application was received, otherwise the application will have "deemed consent". Delaying the application for consideration at the next planning committee would have taken the determination beyond 56 days.
In relation to letters not being delivered, this is beyond the control of the Council. Records confirm that the letters were issued. Notwithstanding, a site notice had been erected.
Conclusion
Although the proposal would bring benefits in terms of technology and communications, its siting, together with its height and appearance in an area of open character, would result in a harmful impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and the surrounding area.
The proposal is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of siting and appearance. Prior Approval is therefore required and refused having regard to Part 16 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended.
