Appeal Decision / Ref:APP/M5450/A/00/1053232

By Richard Ogier BA MRTPI Date:2 FEB 2001-02-24

• London Borough of Harrow v. Orange – application for determination of prior approval dated 28 March 2000 was refused by notice dated 5 May 2000
• 8m free standing column pole + 3 sector antennae + related equipment cabin
• Land at the junction of The Chase and Gordon Avenue, Stanmore

1. …whether the need for the subject development in the location proposed outweighs any harm it may cause to residential amenity, in terms of its visual impact and residents’ perception of harm to human health.

4. Circular 04/99 Planning for Telecommunications lists the factors that may influence the siting…These include the height of the site in relation to surrounding land, the existence of topographical features and natural vegetation and the site in relation to residential property.The Circular refers in para. 5 to the need to strike the right balance…

7.(Inspector notes "exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines") ….However, the IEGMP also came to the view that there could be indirect adverse effects on their well-being in some cases…

Main Issue

Visual Amenity

9.(Inspector notes street lighting columns in the area to be "about 6 m high")…Whilst of slim profile and neat design the proposed pole and shroud would therefore appear as an unusual feature, clearly visible in views from neighbouring front gardens and through some of the windows of houses on Gordon Avenue, three of which I visited.

10.The installation would be clearly visible from the front garden and through ground and first floor at 53c Gordon Avenue and in my estimation from houses adjoining that house, and from the font gardens, through the front windows of 68 and 70 Gordon Avenue and to a lesser extent from the residential properties further to the east. The rising profile of The Chase where it nears the junction would give the installation a particular prominence from the gardens and windows of Nos 68 and 70.

11. ….The height and profile of the proposed structure when viewed from the front garden of No 72…would result in a hard physical presence that could only in my view be described as immediate…the structure would in my view unacceptably dominate the views from No 72. I consider that this would result in a serious loss of amenity for its occupants.

12. The anxiety many residents have expressed about the appeal installation appears to me to be related to the fact that whilst the IEGMP came to a general conclusion that telecom. base stations have no identifiable harmful effect on human health, it cannot be proved on present research that there would be no effect whatsoever on the wellbeing of those living close by. The Government’s approach is that provided the ICNIRP guidelines are met, there should normally be no reason to question the effects…The courts have held however that public fear about the possible health effects…is capable in principle of being a material consideration.

13. In the present case, the Council has expressed satisfaction that the proposed installation would fall within the ICNIRP guidelines. However I am uncertain as to the source of such a conclusion, as I can find no confirmation about compliance with the guidelines…Indeed the appellants have not made any express submission on health matters…

15. …The Council has not disputed the purpose of the proposed installation which is to serve a microcell and thereby rectify a local deficiency…resulting in greater general coverage including improved in-building coverage.

17. Furthermore, the UDP (Harrow’s Unitary Development Plan) which dates from 1994 does not in my view fully reflect other material considerations which have increased in significance since that time.The Code of Best Practice recognises the sensitivity of residential areas in terms of visual impact. Circular 04/99 specifically recognises the relationship between the site of an installation and residential property. The implications of the IEGMP Report, the role of public anxiety about this appeal proposal and the lack of any significant response to that matter on the part of the appellants also emerge as material considerations.

18. …In this case it seems to me that the need to improve network strength and quality satisfied by an installation supporting a microcell may not be as great as that relating to an installation serving a macrocell, despite its local significance.It does not follow to my mind that the satisfaction of need is an absolute imperative that outweighs all other considerations.

19. I conclude that in all the circumstances of this appeal, the need to site the proposed installation in the location proposed does not outweigh the serious harm it would cause to the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of visual impact and anxiety about the possible health effects, particularly those living at 72 Gordon Avenue.