Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 January 2024 by H Miles BA(hons), MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 February 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/L3625/W/23/3325073 Land at Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Meath Green, Surrey RH6 9HZ • 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 Cellnex Connectivity Solutions Ltd against the decision of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. • The application Ref 23/00596/TED, dated 24 March 2023, was refused by notice dated 11 May 2023. • The development proposed is installation of a 20m steel lattice telecommunications mast supporting 12no. antenna together with 16no. equipment cabinets within a new compound area, RRUs, BOBs, MHAs, and Shared Meter Cabinet within 1.8m tall fence line and associated development. Decision 1.

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for installation of a 20m steel lattice telecommunications mast supporting 12no. antenna together with 16no. equipment cabinets within a new compound area, RRUs, BOBs, MHAs, and Shared Meter Cabinet within 1.8m tall fence line and associated development at Land at Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Meath Green, Surrey RH6 9HZ in accordance with the application 23/00596/TED made on 24 March 2023, and the details submitted with it including plan nos S4-15-00-000-ML003, Rev 3, Location Plan, S4-15-00-000- MD004, Rev 4, Site Plan Existing, S4-15-00-001-MD004, Rev 4, Site Plan Proposed, S4-15-00-002-MD004, Rev 4, East Elevation Existing, S4-15-00- 003-MD004, Rev 4, East Elevation Proposed, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the address from the application form as this accurately and clearly describes the appeal site. 3. This is an application for Prior Approval.

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision Therefore, the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO) 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 this basis. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision Therefore, the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO) 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 this basis. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L3625/W/23/3325073 Planning Policy 4. Part 16 of the GPDO establishes that the installation of any electronic communications apparatus by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator for the purpose of the operator’s electronic communications network in accordance with the electronic communications code is permitted development and therefore is accepted in principle by virtue of the legislation. Furthermore, in these circumstances, there is no requirement to have regard to the development plan as there would be for any development requiring planning permission. 5. Nevertheless, Policies DES1, EMP2 and INF3 of the Development Management Plan (2019) are material considerations as they relate to issues of siting and appearance. Together these policies set criteria to achieve high quality design, designate the appeal site as a local employment area and require new telecommunications apparatus to be sited and designed sympathetically and demonstrate that other options do not offer a practical alternative. Similarly, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is also a material consideration, and this includes a section on supporting high quality communications.

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision This approach is in common with other appeal decisions1 I am referred to. Main Issues 6. The main issues are the effect of the siting and appearance of the proposed installation on the character and appearance 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 7. The appeal site is within the Bridge Road Industrial Estate, which is characterised by industrial units and associated parking, storage and paraphernalia related to these employment uses. The submitted plans annotate the maximum height of the buildings to be around 11m. It is adjacent to the railway line with the rear of the houses on Oakwood Road on the opposite side. There is a line of evergreen trees to the rear of some of these properties which are shown on the plans to be around 10m high. The wider area includes a mixture of commercial and residential uses, buildings are generally two storeys, with some three-four storey buildings. The overall character of the area is varied and the prevailing modest height of the buildings and surroundings is a pleasant feature of this area. 8.

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposed monopole would be a utilitarian feature. However, the height and bulk of the installation would be considerably greater than any of the features nearby, and taller than the surrounding buildings. As such it would be harmfully dominant and incongruous in these regards. Consequently, it would be notably harmful to the modest height of the area in these respects. 1 APP/L3625/W/22/3303118, APP/L3625/W/21/3289955 and APP/L3625/W/21/3287724 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposed monopole would be a utilitarian feature. However, the height and bulk of the installation would be considerably greater than any of the features nearby, and taller than the surrounding buildings. As such it would be harmfully dominant and incongruous in these regards. Consequently, it would be notably harmful to the modest height of the area in these respects. 1 APP/L3625/W/22/3303118, APP/L3625/W/21/3289955 and APP/L3625/W/21/3287724 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L3625/W/23/3325073 Alternatives 9. The proposed development is needed for Cellnex who are seeking to provide seamless 4G connectivity and improved coverage and capacity along the entire length of the Brighton Main Line route. It is put to me that there is already coverage in this area from all of the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs). However, this is not tested from within trains within the relevant area, and therefore does not form an accurate picture of connectivity for on-train passengers. Furthermore, the smaller Distributed Antenna System base station would provide very localised coverage only and would therefore not be suitable for these requirements. Moreover, Paragraph 122 of the Framework establishes that local planning authorities should not question the need for an electronic communications system. 10. To meet these requirements, the evidence submitted indicates that the installation must be close to an area focussed around the railway line, shown in the ‘Map showing the site search area’ within the Appellant’s full statement of case. 11. The Appellant has suggested alternative locations for the siting of the proposal.

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision This includes the Vodaphone monopole on Balcombe Road which is unsuitable as it cannot be shared by all the operators and does not provide the required coverage along the railway line. The other masts that are brought to my attention by interested parties are outside the site search area. 12. Other sites are identified by the Appellant which include the redevelopment at the Balcombe Road former Gas Works, Smallfield Works and St Lawrence House. Some of these are similarly constrained to the appeal site and others further constrained including those in proximity to heritage assets, where roof design is not appropriate for the proposed antenna, or outside the site search area. Therefore, there is reasonable justification for discounting these options. My attention has also been drawn to other sites in the area including a rooftop installation off Smallfield Road and Middleton House. However, these are outside the site search area or would not provide adequate coverage. As such these do not represent suitable alternatives. Consequently, I am satisfied that there are no other more suitable sites in this search area. Other Matters 13.

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposed development is needed for Cellnex, who are an electronic communications code operator. They are seeking to provide improved connectivity along this train line, and state that the mast is intended to host MNOs. In the circumstances of this case, they would benefit from this permitted development right. 14. The proposed development would result in the loss of a small area of employment land within a local employment area. It is currently used for storage, vehicle movements and a smoking shelter for the occupiers of the adjacent industrial units. However, given its size and the extent of the remaining external area, and the temporary nature of any other requirements such as for servicing, I do not find that it would prevent employment uses from operating on this site. I have no detail as to any extensions or redevelopment proposed at this site and therefore I have no evidence that the proposed mast would result in conflict with any likely future development. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L3625/W/23/3325073 15. Given the slender form of the mast and the distance from nearby residential properties, the proposed development would not result in a harmful loss of light to nearby properties. Whilst, for the reasons above, the view from these dwellings would change, their main outlook across gardens and the railway would remain. Planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, therefore the protection of private interests such as the impact on the value of a neighbouring property would not be a material consideration. 16. 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 NPPF advises that health safeguards are not something which a decision-maker should determine. No sufficiently authoritative evidence has been provided to indicate that the ICNIRP guidelines would not be complied with or that a departure from national policy would be justified. 17.

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision There are provisions in the GDPO which allow for the alteration or replacement of an existing mast or apparatus. This would be subject to limitations and conditions. Furthermore, the proposed mast has been designed to provide services to all MNOs and with sufficient capacity to host 5G equipment. Therefore, there would not be a real prospect of a significantly more harmful development occurring on this basis. Planning Balance 18. Although I identify harm with regard to the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, I nevertheless find that the site proposed is the most suitable to provide the service required. Taking into account the acceptance of telecommunications equipment by the GPDO this is a strong factor in favour of allowing the appeal. Consequently, this outweighs the visual harm in this case. Conditions 19. The GPDO does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions beyond the deemed conditions for development by electronic communications code operators contained within it.

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Appeal Decision These include that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details submitted with the application, begin within 5 years of the date of the approval and be removed as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for electronic communications purposes and the land restored to its condition before the development took place. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.

Bridge Industrial Estate, Balcombe Road, Horley, RH6 9HZ — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — H Miles INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4