St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX

St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 May 2022 by Jonathan Manning BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th June 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/E0345/W/21/3288114 St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required 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 appeal is made by CK Hutchinson Networks (UK) Ltd against the decision of Reading Borough Council. • The application Ref 211429/TEL, dated 21 August 2021, was refused by notice dated 26 October 2021. • The development proposed is 15.0m phase 8 monopole C/W wrapround cabinet at base and associated ancillary works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. As this is an application for prior approval, the provisions of the 2015 Order 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. This appeal will be determined on the same basis. Planning Policy 3.

St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision Part 16 of the Order establishes that the proposal is permitted development and therefore it is accepted in principle by virtue of the legislation. Furthermore, there is no requirement to have regard to the development plan as there would be for any development requiring planning permission. Nevertheless, Policies CC7, OU3, RL1 and RL3 of the Reading Borough Local Plan, 2019 are material considerations as they relate to issues of siting and appearance. Similarly, the National Planning Policy Framework, 2021 (the NPPF) is also a material consideration and this includes a section on supporting high quality communications. Main Issues 4. The main issues of this appeal are the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E0345/W/21/3288114 of the area and, if any harm would occur, whether this is outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking into account any suitable alternatives. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site is located on St Michaels Road and is on highway land at an intersection within a designated district centre called the Tilehurst Triangle. Policies RL1 and RL3 of the LP aim to maintain and enhance the overall vitality and viability of street frontages and associated environment within district centres to maintain access to services and gathering places which can foster a sense of community. 6. There is a mix of commercial and residential properties in the area. I observed that there is other street furniture close to the appeal site, including 10 metre high streetlights. Due to its location on the corner of a junction the appeal site commands a prominent position in the street scene. I consider that the appeal sites prominent position is exacerbated by the lack of trees in the immediate surrounding area to screen the proposal and the open nature of the public house car park behind the appeal site. 7.

St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposed 15 metre high monopole would be much greater in height than any surrounding street infrastructure. Further, it would be much bulkier than the existing streetlights, which have a slender design. As a result of this and due to its prominent position in the street scene, the monopole would appear as an overly dominant structure that would tower above other street furniture and also the properties that would surround it. It would not mirror the height and massing of existing landscape features as contended by the appellant. 8. Given all of the above, I consider the siting and appearance of the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and as a result would also harm the vitality and viability of the District Centre. This runs contrary to Policies CC7, OU3, RL1 and RL3 of the LP. Further, the NPPF at Paragraph 115 sets out that ‘Where new sites are required (such as for new 5G networks, or for connected transport and smart city applications), equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate’. For the above reasons, I do not consider this to be the case here. Need and alternative sites 9.

St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision I consider that the appellant’s evidence demonstrates a clear need for enhanced capacity and expansion in the area. The NPPF at Paragraph 114 sets out that planning policies and decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G). The scheme would help to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision I consider that the appellant’s evidence demonstrates a clear need for enhanced capacity and expansion in the area. The NPPF at Paragraph 114 sets out that planning policies and decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G). The scheme would help to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E0345/W/21/3288114 deliver such expansion and would result in demonstrable economic benefits. 10. I accept the appellants view that due to the nature of 5G, there are no structures within the area which are suitable for sharing apparatus due to them being unable to support the operational requirements of the equipment and that all effort has been reasonably made in this regard. I also acknowledge that the type of installation that the applicant has proposed is the optimum design solution for deploying 5G technologies and the height at 15 metres is the very lowest that would work effectively in this area, which does have constraints. 11. In terms of alternative sites, the appellant’s evidence shows that eight other sites were considered in the area where the location of a new mast would meet the appellant’s operational requirements. The majority of these were ruled out due to the proximity of residential properties and a school.

St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, it is unclear at what distances these would be, particularly in comparison to the appeal site which does have some residential properties in fairly close proximity, including what appear to be some residential units above the commercial units very close to the appeal site. 12. Further, one site referred to as site ‘D6’ in the appellant’s evidence was ruled out as a tree canopy would need pruning. The ‘D6’ site is located a short distance from the appeal site along School Road, adjacent to a group of large trees that would provide significant screening for a monopole of this size. As suggested by the Council in some cases the pruning of a tree canopy may be considered acceptable and there is no evidence to suggest that this has been fully investigated by the appellant at location ‘D6’. Having regard to all of the above, there is not sufficient evidence before me to definitively rule out other sites and to clearly demonstrate the appeal site is the only feasible option. 13. Given all of this, I am not of the view that in this case, the need or benefits of the scheme outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area. The siting and appearance of the proposal is therefore unacceptable.

St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.

St Michaels Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 5AX — Reading Borough Council — Jonathan Manning INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3