Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 January 2024 by S Rawle BA (Hons) Dip TP Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 February 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/E0345/W/23/3327397 Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY • 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 & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended. • The appeal is made by CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Ltd against the decision of Reading Borough Council. • The application Ref 230011, dated 6 January 2023, was refused by notice dated 27 February 2023.The development proposed is 5G telecoms installation: H3G 15m street pole and additional equipment cabinets. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. 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 GPDO), planning permission is granted for the installation, alteration or replacement of any electronic communications apparatus subject to limitations and conditions. 3.

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision The provisions of the GPDO require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely based on its siting and appearance, taking account of any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis. 4. The principle of development is established by the GPDO and the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A do not require consideration of the development plan. I have had regard to the policies of the development plan only in so far as they are factors relevant to matters of siting and appearance, therefore. Main Issues 5. The main issues are; • the effect of the proposed installation on the character and appearance of the area including the setting of Prospect Park a Grade II Registered Park and Garden; 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 or any associated public benefits. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E0345/W/23/3327397 Reasons Character and appearance 6. The appeal site lies within a particularly prominent location on a triangular shaped area of open land that includes a wide footpath, a verge, some low- level street furniture including a post and litter bin. It is located in a mixed-use suburban area comprising retail, healthcare and residential uses. 7. The appeal site is located adjacent to a bungalow which has an attractive hedge that defines the boundary of this modest dwelling. There are some vertical features within the vicinity, including lampposts, traffic signs and some mature trees on the opposite side of the road. However, due to the open appearance of the appeal site and its immediate surroundings, there is a sense of spaciousness in front of the bungalow which makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area. 8. The appeal site is located relatively near to an entrance to Prospect Park an extensive and attractive open space that is designated as a Grade II Listed Historic Park and Garden (the Park).

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision From the evidence before me, I consider that the significance of the Park as a whole, largely derives from the late 18th century Prospect House (the House) located at its north-west corner surrounded by a semicircle of informal lawns planted with mature and semi- mature trees. 9. At one time a drive entered 300m west of the House off Honey End Lane, but this was lost when the hospital was constructed. Although the existing entrance off Honey End Lane is located near the appeal site, it is separated from it by a busy road and a small carpark. There is also significant screening between the appeal site and the Park as a result of intervening mature trees and other vegetation. As a result, the appeal site does not make a positive contribution to the setting of this heritage asset. 10. The proposed new cabinets are a typical form of structure seen within a suburban area. Given their relatively low height and as they would be set against the backdrop of the existing hedge they would not appear as incongruous features on the pavement and would not lead to undue visual clutter. 11.

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appeal site is not located within a conservation area and due to the distance it would be set away from the Park, and the intervening carpark and screening provided by existing trees and vegetation the mast would have a neutral impact on the significance of this nearby heritage asset. As a result, in so far as they are material the proposal would not conflict with Policies EN1 and EN7 of the Reading Borough Local Plan adopted November 2019 (RBLP) which among other things seek to protect the historic environment and that development should be sensitive to the historic context of an area. 12. However, the proposed 15m mast would protrude significantly above the adjacent bungalow and its front hedge as well as the other vertical features in the vicinity of the appeal site. Given the open appearance of its surroundings and the fact that there would be very little screening from any nearby trees, the pole would be readily visible from many vantage points, including people walking and driving along Honey End Lane. As a result, it would stand out as an isolated and atypical structure. It follows that the proposal would appear as https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E0345/W/23/3327397 an uncharacteristic and alien feature within the streetscene that would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. 13. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. As a result, in so far as they are material considerations, the proposal would not accord with Policies CC7 and OU3 of the RBLP which, among other things, seek to ensure that development maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area and that telecommunication development should not have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding area. 14. Moreover, the scheme would be at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to ensure that new equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged, where appropriate as well as requiring developments to be sympathetic to local character. The need for the installation, alternative sites, and public benefits 15. I note that the Framework supports the provision of advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure and also take account of the Government’s support for the rollout of the 5G network. 16.

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision I accept the appellant has a need to provide the installation within this area which would establish 5G connectivity. A sequential approach to site selection has been adopted. This involved considering options, including mast and site sharing, using existing buildings and structures and alternative ground-based installations. This process led to the selection of the appeal site location. 17. The appellant identified six possible alternative sites. However, very little detailed information has been provided on why these sites have been discounted. Reasons provided include unsuitable pavements and visibility splays and that some of the sites are within a residential area. 18. However, given the generic reasoning provided, it is not clear whether locating the installations on these sites would be operationally impossible or just challenging. Moreover, if development would ultimately be possible on a particular alternative site, it is not clear why the appellant considers it would be more harmful than the proposed location, especially as the appeal site is located so close to the existing bungalow.

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision Therefore, the information provided is insufficiently compelling or robust to show that this is the only site on which the proposed development could be located. 19. Given the potential impact on the setting of the Park, in this case I have taken account of the public benefits associated with this proposal, including that the proposed installation would provide good, fast, reliable communication infrastructure and would support the rollout of the 5G network which would have economic and societal benefits not least because following the COVID-19 pandemic, the public has become more reliant on mobile communication given the requirements to work at home. 20. However, notwithstanding my finding that the proposal would have a neutral impact on the setting of the Park, overall these matters do not outweigh the harm the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the area. Nor do they justify harmful development at the appeal site. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E0345/W/23/3327397 21. As outlined above I have found that the siting and appearance of the proposed installation would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. I am not persuaded that less harmful alternatives have been properly explored. Nor am I persuaded that the need for the installation, or any public benefits outweigh the harm. As a result, in so far as relevant the proposal would not accord with Policy OU3 of the RBLP which seeks to ensure that alternative sites and site-sharing have been fully investigated and that it has been demonstrated that no preferable alternative sites are potentially available that would be less visually intrusive. Other Matters 22. 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 decisionmaker should determine. As a result, the fact that the appellant has provided the ICNIRP certificate is a neutral consideration. Conclusion 23.

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — Appeal Decision For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Area of Footpath, Honey End Lane Street Works, Honey End Lane, Reading, RG30 4EY — Reading Borough Council — S Rawle INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4