- Decision
- dismissed, 11 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: R Sabu
- Authority
- Bromley (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6003034
- Application reference
- 25/01478/FULL1
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Rooftop telecoms installation on a supermarket (6 antennas on tripod frames, 4 dishes, 4 cabinets); apparatus to 20.6 m AGL, 5.6 m above the roof
- Site context
- conservation area, listed building setting, inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(5), HE6(6), CO1(1)(b)
- Development plan policies
- Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 37, 38, 41, 89
- Main issues
- heritage (CA and Grade II* setting); character and appearance; alternative sites
Summary
A rooftop mobile installation on the Chislehurst Sainsbury's, replacing lost coverage for EE/Three and the Emergency Services Network. The inspector gave the network benefit substantial weight under CO1. But the inspector found substantial harm to the Chislehurst Conservation Area and to the setting of a Grade II* church, and alternatives had not been ruled out. Under HE6(5)/(6) the harm was not justified. Appeal dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Heritage: substantial harm. "As the equipment would be significantly taller than the roof of the host building and would be visible in close proximity to the Church, the harm to the significance of the CA would be substantial" (DL ¶10). "It would result in substantial harm to the setting of the Church" (DL ¶11).
- CO1: substantial weight to the benefit. "Framework Policy CO1 states that in considering proposals for the expansion or upgrading of electronic telecommunications networks, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of maintaining or improving network coverage … As the network would serve the ESN and replace a network deficit, I attribute substantial weight to the public benefit" (DL ¶15-16).
- Alternatives / CO2. The car-park pole prior approval had been discounted, but "details of the design and associated implications … are not before me to discount this site altogether" (DL ¶17). "It has not been demonstrated that there are no alternative sites that would not be within the setting of listed buildings" (DL ¶18).
- CO1(1)(b): FAIL. "While I note the operation requirements of the proposal, given the proximity of the proposal to the listed building, I find that the proposal would not accord with this part of the Policy" (DL ¶19).
Planning balance
This was the HE6(5)/(6) heritage balance. "As it has not been demonstrated that alternative sites which do not affect the listed building could not yet be found, the substantial weight attributed to the public benefit would not outweigh the substantial harm to the CA and Church. Accordingly, the development would not be wholly exceptional to justify the substantial harm to a Grade II* listed building" (DL ¶22).
What made the difference
The alternatives evidence. Under HE6(5) the harm must be "necessary" to achieve the benefit. An unexplored nearby consented site, plus no search outside listed-building settings, meant necessity was not shown. With a robust sequential site search, the CO1 substantial weight could have been tested against the harm on better terms. The "substantial harm" label for rooftop kit in a setting is itself a strong finding.
Transferable points
- CO1 substantial weight does not override heritage harm where alternatives have not been properly explored. The CO2(1)(b) evidence feeds the HE6(5) "necessary" test (DL ¶17-18, ¶22).
- Setting harm from rooftop telecoms can be rated "substantial" where the apparatus is seen close to a Grade II* building (DL ¶10-11). Contrast the usual "less than substantial" findings; the 2026 HE6 drops that label but keeps the substantial-harm tier.
- CO1(1)(b) "minimise visual impact" is assessed against heritage context, not just operational need (DL ¶19).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(5) | fail | "substantial harm" found to the significance of Chislehurst CA and to the setting of the Grade II* Church of the Annunciation; not necessary to achieve substantial public benefits because alternatives were not excluded (DL ¶10-13, ¶22) | |
| HE6(6) | fail | substantial harm to a Grade II* asset should be "wholly exceptional"; not shown (DL ¶21-22) | |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | harm is "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶21) |
| CO1(1) | benefit | substantial | replaces a lost rooftop site (network deficit), two operators and the Emergency Services Network (DL ¶14-16) |
| CO1(1)(b) | fail | not sited or designed to minimise visual impact given proximity to the listed church (DL ¶19) | |
| CO2(1)(b) | fail | alternatives not adequately explored, including an unimplemented 17.5 m pole prior approval in the car park and sites outside listed-building settings (DL ¶17-18) | |
| Policies 37, 38, 41, 89 (Bromley LP 2019) | conflict | design, listed building setting, conservation area, telecoms (DL ¶23) |
Key facts
- Earlier coverage from a rooftop at 3 High Street was decommissioned; replacement site agreed as needed (DL ¶14)
- Apparatus 20.6 m AGL; mast element 5.6 m above the roof; on the high northern end of a 1970s-style brick supermarket (DL ¶9)
- Seen in views with the Grade II* James Brooks church and along the High Street (DL ¶9, ¶11)
- Unimplemented prior approval for a 17.5 m pole in the rear car park, discounted by the appellant as not shareable, but details not before the inspector (DL ¶17)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.