Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 19 July 2021 by Andrew Smith BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th August 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/K0235/W/21/3273374 Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford MK41 0BA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). • The appeal is made by Hutchison UK Ltd against the decision of Bedford Borough Council. • The application Ref 21/00441/TELPN, dated 10 February 2021, was refused by notice dated 12 April 2021. • The telecommunications installation proposed is 18m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wrapround Cabinet at base and associated ancillary works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 20 July 2021. The main parties to this appeal have had the opportunity to comment upon any relevance of this to the outcome of this appeal. 3. The principle of development is established by the GPDO.

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision Even so, Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, Paragraph A.3 requires, amongst other provisions, a developer to apply for a determination as to whether prior approval will be required as to the siting and appearance of the development. I shall have regard to the policies of the development plan and the Framework only in so far as they are material considerations relevant to matters of siting and appearance. 4. The Council refused to grant prior approval for three separate reasons. However, the Council has since been confirmed that it no longer wishes to rely upon its third refusal reason, which related to the proposal’s alleged potential to cause danger and inconvenience to highway users. I shall consider the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether or not the siting and appearance of the proposed development is acceptable, having particular regard to visual impact, the effect upon nearby trees and the scheme’s benefits. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/21/3273374 Reasons 6. The intended monopole and associated wraparound cabinet would be located upon a grassed highway verge that sits alongside an area of open space known as Chillington Green. Various established trees are positioned short distances from where the monopole would be sited. 7. Of pertinence to this case is a large Cedar of Lebanon tree (the Cedar), which exhibits significant girth and veteran tree characteristics. It has relevance to the historic evolution of the area and occupies a prominent position in the townscape, being visible from a range of locations. It is a specimen of high amenity value that contributes significantly to the verdant qualities of Church Lane. 8. Various existing trees (including the Cedar) would offer a degree of screening to limit available views of the monopole, particularly from northern vantage points. However, I do not accept that the monopole would have a small visual envelope. Indeed, it would exceed the height of most surrounding trees and appear as an inherently modern addition to the Cedar’s immediate setting.

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, from various vantage points, the monopole would be experienced either alongside or within the immediate foreground of the Cedar and would have an unduly intrusive and harmful visual influence. 9. Whilst I acknowledge the nearby presence of existing streetlighting columns, these are set at approximately half the height of the proposed monopole and, in comparison, are of slimmer specification. Indeed, particularly when noting the height of the Cedar, they appear as ancillary low-impact features within the streetscene. The monopole, although of somewhat slimline design, would not have a similarly unobtrusive presence. 10. It is suggested in the appellant’s evidence that, by evading tree canopies, Root Protection Areas (RPAs) would be avoided. This is not necessarily the case. Indeed, the Cedar is an historic tree of significant girth that likely has an extensive root system. In the absence of a tree survey (or similar), I cannot be confident that the scheme would not necessitate works inside the Cedar’s RPA. This is a stance shared by the Council’s Lead Tree Officer.

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision When factoring in the Cedar’s high value, I find that any potential implications for its long-term health have not been thoroughly explored to suitably justify the monopole’s intended siting. 11. A further tree of relevance, identified by the Council as a Robinia (the Robinia), is located to the immediate south of the monopole’s intended location. Whilst this is a younger and far less prominent specimen when compared to the Cedar, I observed it to be in good health and to contribute positively to the visual amenities of the area. Notwithstanding the Robinia’s position as illustrated upon submitted plans, my own on-site assessments indicated that the monopole would be likely to directly conflict with its canopy. It is thus probable that significant/periodic pruning of the Robinia’s canopy, as well as RPA groundworks, would be necessitated, which would be likely to have long- term implications for its health and continued contribution. It has not been robustly substantiated otherwise. 12. For the above reasons, the monopole, however coloured, would appear as a domineering and discordant addition and would contrast harshly with the verdant qualities and high amenity value offered by the Cedar.

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, in https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, in https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/21/3273374 the absence of robust evidence to the contrary, the long-term health and associated amenity value offered by both the Cedar and the Robinia would likely be compromised by virtue of their proximity to the intended works. 13. As set out in the Framework, advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well- being and planning decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G) and full fibre broadband connections. The scheme would be in line with Government aspirations in this context and would support high quality communications and digital connectivity by offering 5G services that could potentially be provided on a shared basis in the future. 14. I have no reason to doubt that the scheme would deliver tangible improvements to communication networks in the area, which is densely populated. Indeed, the Framework indicates that the need for electronic communication systems should not be questioned when determining development schemes.

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision I also accept that the position of the newly proposed equipment would need to complement the existing network so as to promote continuous network cover. As a result, the search area that was identified for the purposes of site selection was necessarily constrained in size. 15. However, whilst alternative sites were considered and discounted as part of the appellant’s site selection process, detailed supporting information to fully corroborate that an exhaustive search of all possible sites was undertaken and that potential alternatives were discounted on reasonable grounds is not before me. For example, possible alternative locations in the local vicinity of the appeal site (including within adjoining or neighbouring grassed verge areas) would appear not to have been comprehensively assessed. 16. I acknowledge that efforts have been taken to position the monopole away from potentially sensitive receptors and in proximity to existing planting to achieve partial screening.

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, it has not been clearly substantiated that it would be impractical to follow a similar approach elsewhere within (or near to) the designated search area whilst avoiding, or substantially reducing, the specific significant adverse effects that I have identified. 17. Notwithstanding the above considerations related to the potential availability of alternative sites, the public benefit of improved digital communications networks still attracts considerable weight. Nevertheless, I have identified that the proposal would have an intrusive visual influence in proximity to the Cedar and would likely have a detrimental effect upon the long-term health and associated amenity value of established trees. The scheme’s benefits would not, I consider, outweigh its significant harms. 18. For the above reasons, the siting and appearance of the proposed development would not be acceptable having particular regard to visual impact, the effect upon nearby trees and the scheme’s benefits.

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposal conflicts with Policies 29, 30, 39 and 96 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (adopted January 2020) and with the Framework in so far as these policies require that particular attention is given to the relationship of the development with the context in which it is placed and that no building works will be permitted that do not accord with the principles of the relevant British Standard (related to trees). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposal conflicts with Policies 29, 30, 39 and 96 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (adopted January 2020) and with the Framework in so far as these policies require that particular attention is given to the relationship of the development with the context in which it is placed and that no building works will be permitted that do not accord with the principles of the relevant British Standard (related to trees). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/K0235/W/21/3273374 Other Matter 19. Concerns have been raised about potential effects on health. However, the appellant has provided a certificate to confirm that the proposal has been designed to comply with the guidelines published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). In these circumstances, the Framework advises that health safeguards are not something which a decision-maker should determine. Conclusion 20. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

Church Lane, Putnoe, Bedford, MK41 0BA — Bedford Borough Council — Andrew Smith INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4