Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 January 2024 by S Pearce BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 February 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/Q4245/W/23/3317286 Land adj. Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston, Manchester M32 9LU • 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 Cornerstone against the decision of Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref 107717/TEL/22, dated 29 March 2022, was refused by notice dated 25 August 2022. • The development proposed is described as the “installation of a 20 metre high monopole supporting 6 no. antennas, and 2 no. transmission dishes, 4 no. equipment cabinets and development works ancillary thereto.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO 2015), under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A, Paragraph A.3(4) 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. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis. 3. Since the determination of this application, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 19 December 2023 and updated on 20 December 2023. Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been amended. As a result, I consider that there is no requirement for me to seek further submissions on the Framework, and I am satisfied that no party’s interests would be prejudiced by my taking this approach. Where I have referred to a specific paragraph of the Framework, the numbering used is that of the revised version. 4. As the scheme was revised before it was refused, the parties agreed a revised description of development.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision I have therefore adopted the revised description of development from the Council’s decision notice, in the interest of accuracy and certainty. 5. For clarity, I have had regard to the revised plans that the Council considered as part of their refusal, which show an amended monopole design and height, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision I have therefore adopted the revised description of development from the Council’s decision notice, in the interest of accuracy and certainty. 5. For clarity, I have had regard to the revised plans that the Council considered as part of their refusal, which show an amended monopole design and height, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/23/3317286 Paladin fencing and illustrate that the monopole and associated equipment would be painted Olive Green. Planning Policy 6. The provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO 2015 do not require regard be had to the development plan. Nevertheless, Policies L7 and R5 of the Trafford Local Plan: Core Strategy Adopted January 2012 (CS) are a material consideration insofar as they relate to issues of siting and appearance. In particular, they seek, among other things, to ensure development proposals are appropriate in their context and protect existing areas of open space. Similarly, the Framework is also a material consideration, and this includes a section on supporting high quality communications. Main Issues 7. The main issues are: • the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance of the area, • the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the designated Open Space / Outdoor Recreation Space; 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 8.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appeal site located within an area of open space, which is bounded by low fencing and largely laid to grass. While noting the row of trees along the southerly boundary that adjoins the highway, this area is relatively open. A railway line runs alongside the northerly boundary of the appeal site and a footpath runs alongside its easterly boundary. Grassed verges and street trees give the area an open, spacious and verdant feel. Vertical structures in this area predominately comprise lampposts and telegraph poles, with an existing mast, of a lower height and slimmer profile than the appeal scheme, located on a grass verge broadly opposite the appeal site. Building heights are relatively low, with predominately two storey residential properties. The low building heights, street furniture, trees and grassed verges contribute to the character and appearance of the area. 9. The proposed development includes a new shared electronic communications base station and mast. The mast would support 6 antennas and 2 dishes, located at the uppermost section of the mast.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Although the mast is the smallest scale and height possible for operational needs and set back from the nearest highway, adjacent to the railway line, it would, nevertheless, be significantly higher than surrounding buildings and trees, and other utilitarian structures, including lampposts and the nearby mast. Moreover, while noting the antennas are within a tight configuration, due to the location of the antennas and dishes, it would be these more prominent elements of the scheme that would be most visible above the canopies of the surrounding trees https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Although the mast is the smallest scale and height possible for operational needs and set back from the nearest highway, adjacent to the railway line, it would, nevertheless, be significantly higher than surrounding buildings and trees, and other utilitarian structures, including lampposts and the nearby mast. Moreover, while noting the antennas are within a tight configuration, due to the location of the antennas and dishes, it would be these more prominent elements of the scheme that would be most visible above the canopies of the surrounding trees https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/23/3317286 and roofs of neighbouring properties, as evidenced by the proposed elevational drawing. 10. While acknowledging the proposed mast height represents the lowest height the radio antennas can be elevated at, in order to ensure their radio waves are not interfered with by obstructions, such as trees or buildings, to which 5G is more susceptible, it would, nevertheless, result in an incongruously tall, dominant and conspicuous feature. The proposed mast would be significantly higher than the buildings, trees, lampposts and mast in the locality. As such, it would therefore detract significantly from the character of the area. 11. The proposed compound paladin fencing and cabinets would, by virtue of their height, siting and proposed colour, not be prominent features. Moreover, the paladin fencing would assimilate well with the existing fencing, which is of a similar height and appearance. However, these positive factors do not outweigh the harm identified, as a result of the overall height and prominence of the proposal. 12. The proposed mast would be located adjacent to the northerly boundary of the area of open space, away from Humphrey Lane.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision It would, as a result of its height and bulk, be an imposing feature for users of the open space, which further reinforces my conclusions in respect of character and appearance. 13. The appeal scheme would also be viewed alongside nearby trees, which would provide a partial backdrop and some screening to the proposed installation. However, as it is not clear whether any of these trees are within the appellant’s control, their longevity is uncertain. 14. While the proposed development would be finished an olive green colour, the bulkier section of the mast, incorporating the antennas and dishes, would be visible above the canopies of adjacent trees. As such, the proposed colour would do little to minimise the visual impact of the mast and associated equipment. 15. I understand, in order to provide the optimal service provision, antennas are proposed to be open and not shielded. Nevertheless, the height, combined with the bulk of the antennas and dishes at the uppermost section of the mast, would be at odds with the prevailing character of the area. 16. The appellant asserts that there are some elements of the proposed development that do not require permission in their own right.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, such elements would not be required if it were not for the proposed monopole. As such, they would cumulatively add to the bulk of the proposed installation, thereby drawing attention to the proposal and further exacerbating its height, dominance and prominence. 17. For these reasons, I conclude the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Insofar as they are a material consideration, the proposal would also be contrary to the aims of CS Policy L7 and the Framework. Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Space 18. The proposed compound lies within an area of designated open space, which is predominately open and used primarily for children’s recreation. CS Policy R5 is https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/23/3317286 broadly consistent with the Framework, and collectively they seek to protect areas of open space. 19. The proposed installation would be sited close to the northerly boundary of the site. The appellant asserts that the compound area amounts to approximately 26 square metres and would occupy approximately 0.65% of the open space. The Council have not disputed these figures. 20. The appeal scheme would result in only a partial loss of the open space. Its siting, close to the northerly boundary, combined with the relatively compact compound area, would ensure that vast majority of the open space would remain unaffected by the development. Therefore, the usability of this area for recreation would remain largely unaffected. As such, it would not materially affect the recreational value, or useability, of the area. 21. For these reasons, I conclude the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would not harm the designated Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Space. Insofar as they are a material consideration, the proposal would also comply with the aims of CS Policy L5 and the Framework. Need and alternative sites 22.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposed development would provide improved 2G, 3G and 4G coverage and new 5G coverage to the surrounding area. The proposed installation would provide a service for two operators, plus those who buy network space off them. This joint approach would help meet the objective in paragraph 119 of the Framework, which seeks, among other things, to keep the number of masts to a minimum, consistent with the needs of consumers, the efficient operation of the network and providing reasonable capacity for future expansion. 23. While acknowledging the need for improved coverage, given the harm I have found to the character and appearance of the area, other options that might be available are an important consideration. Paragraph 121 of the Framework requires, for a new mast, that evidence is provided that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure. 24. I understand that no buildings, of a suitable height with a flat rooftop design, or existing mast sharing opportunities were identified in the required target area that could be utilised or shared by the appellant.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Notwithstanding this, other locations have been considered, which have been informed by the very specific and unique gap in the network and the need to be located close to the existing mast and to integrate and overlap with other cells to form an unbroken network, the dense patterns of residential land use and, having regard to 5G, the need to locate equipment where the local demand exists. 25. The appellant has provided a number of reasons for discounting these other sites. These include that the resulting coverage pattern would be different to the existing, resulting in a deficiency in coverage. However, the evidence before me only provides coverage plots for existing and proposed 5G coverage for the proposed installation only. The evidence does not illustrate the coverage that could be achieved by the alternative sites, including the extent of any deficiencies. 26. Furthermore, the appellant asserts that the appeal proposal must be located as close as possible to the existing mast, in order to create a ‘patchwork’ of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/23/3317286 overlapping coverage to retain customer coverage and ensure demand is met, with 3G and 4G signals penetrating a few hundred metres. No further details in respect of the precise proximity have been provided. 27. As highlighted by the appellant, the search area covers residential, business and transport related land uses. The appeal site is close to industrial buildings, a section of the M60 and areas of open land. These buildings and areas have not been included within the alternative site assessment. I cannot be certain, therefore, whether these other locations have been considered and, if so, the reasons for discounting them. 28. As such, given that there may be alternative sites or buildings that could accommodate the proposal which may be less visually intrusive than the appeal site, the analysis by the appellant is not sufficiently comprehensive to show that it has considered all reasonable options. Overall, the reasons given for discounting other sites are brief and unsupported by sufficient detailed evidence to demonstrate why they would not be viable. 29.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Therefore, in the absence of clear and persuasive evidence as to why alternative sites have been discounted, and why other nearby areas have not been considered, it has not been demonstrated that more suitable sites might reasonably be available. Consequently, I am not satisfied, based on the evidence before me, that suitable alternatives have been comprehensively explored, nor that the requirements of paragraph 121 of the Framework have been fully met. 30. There would be economic, social, education, health and environmental well- being benefits associated with providing 5G technology to an area which currently has no such coverage for the operator’s customers. Furthermore, I understand the demand for mobile data in the UK is increasing rapidly and infrastructure needs to be in place to ensure supply does not become a constraint on future demand. 31. Several reports and documents have been drawn to my attention, including letters from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Online Nation 2021 Report, which extol these benefits and the importance of connectivity, while highlighting need to ensure the planning system continues to effectively support the deployment of mobile network infrastructure. 32.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision As set out in the Framework, advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well- being. Nevertheless, while acknowledging these benefits exist, the provisions of the GPDO 2015 are clear, and I am only able to consider the matters of siting and appearance. Other Matters 33. I have considered the appeal decisions submitted by the appellant. While in two1 of the cases the Inspectors found a lack of alternative sites outweighed the visual impact associated with the proposed installations, based on the evidence before me, the locational contexts and circumstances were different. In the other two cases2 the Inspectors found no harm in respect of the character and appearance of the area and, as such, there was no further 1 APP/K2610/W/17/3176890 and APP/D5120/W/15/3033745 2 APP/E5330/W/16/3159250 and APP/J4423/W/17/3188962 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4245/W/23/3317286 requirement for them to consider alternative sites. Consequently, on the evidence before me, the appeals drawn to my attention are not directly comparable. In any case, I have determined this appeal on its own merits. 34. The absence of harm in respect of the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, highway safety and public health carry neutral weight in favour of the proposal. 35. I note the appellant’s assertion that the Council did not carry out a balancing exercise and they have submitted an appeal decision3 and its associated costs decision which confirm such an approach. While there is a discrepancy between the reference numbers given, it is clear the submitted appeal decision is the same as the one referred to in the appellant’s statement. I note the Council’s delegated report does, albeit briefly, have regard to the benefits of the proposed installation. As this relates to how the Council assessed the proposal, this is a matter between the appellant and the Council. Conclusion 36.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Notwithstanding my conclusions in respect of the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the designated Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Space, the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Given suitable alternatives have not been fully explored, this harm is not outweighed by the need for the installation to be sited as proposed. As such, I find the siting and appearance of the proposed development to be unacceptable. 37. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Land adjacent to Humphrey Park Station, Humphrey Lane, Urmston Manchester, Greater Manchester, M32 9LU — Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council — S Pearce INSPECTOR 3 APP/G5180/W/16/3151769 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6