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.
