- Decision
- dismissed, 17 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K Mee
- Authority
- Liverpool (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6009085
- Application reference
- 26PT/0694
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- GPDO Part 16 Class A prior approval for a 20 m EE/H3G streetworks pole with antennas, dishes and ground cabinets on a wide pavement by a park and signalised junction
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- Determinative policies
- CO1(1)(a), CO1(1)(b), CO2(1)(b)
- Development plan policies
- Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 STP4, GI9, H7, TP1, TP3, TP4, TP5, TP6
- Main issues
- siting and appearance; trees; living conditions; highway; alternative sites
Summary
A 20 m EE/Three pole replacing coverage from a site being demolished, proposed on a wide pavement next to a park and a signalised junction in Dovecot, Liverpool. The inspector found harm to character (visual clutter), future pressure on nearby trees, and conflict with an approved junction scheme. The rejection of several alternatives was not adequately justified. Appeal dismissed. The letter is dated 17 August 2026 but applies the December 2024 Framework's paragraph numbers, so it is recorded as transitional.
Issues and findings
- Transition. No mention of the new Framework. The reasons cite "Paragraph 119 … Paragraph 120 … paragraph 122" of the Framework (DL ¶25), the 2024 numbering, which maps to 2026 CO1/CO2.
- Character: harm. "The height and bulk of the monopole along with the multiple associated cabinets would add appreciably to visual clutter and would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the immediate area" (DL ¶10).
- Trees: harm. "Insufficient evidence has been provided to dispel concerns that the mast's proximity to these trees could give rise to future pressure for pruning or removal in order to maintain signal quality" (DL ¶16).
- Highway: harm. "If implemented, the development would prejudice the delivery of the junction upgrade" (DL ¶22).
- Alternatives: not shown. "While these sites are discounted due to the presence of nearby masts, no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate why similar interference concerns would not also arise from the two existing masts in the vicinity of the appeal site" (DL ¶27).
- Scope. The appellant's complaint that the council had not balanced social and economic benefits was rejected, because the GPDO confines assessment to siting and appearance (DL ¶29).
Planning balance
Need against harm: "While the need for the proposed installation weighs in favour of the appeal … I am not satisfied that less harmful alternatives have been properly explored. For these reasons, I find the siting and appearance of the proposed development to be unacceptable and is not outweighed by the need for the installation" (DL ¶28).
What made the difference
Internally inconsistent site-search reasoning: rejecting sites for being near masts while choosing a site near two masts. Add to that the tree-pressure point, which counts even without direct root or canopy harm. Better alternatives evidence might have tipped it, as at Burgess Hill (PINS-6010382). The junction scheme conflict would have remained.
Transferable points
- Future pressure to prune or fell trees to keep line of sight is a legitimate siting and appearance harm for masts (DL ¶14-16).
- Inconsistent reasons for rejecting alternative sites undermine the whole site search (DL ¶27).
- A mast that would prejudice an approved highway improvement scheme counts against it on highway grounds (DL ¶21-23).
- A decision on 17 August 2026 still cited the 2024 Framework paragraphs. It is a marker of the transition gap.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO1(1)(b) | fail | 2024 NPPF ¶120 (sympathetic design / minimum number of masts) cited; bulkier top plus several tall cabinets add "appreciably to visual clutter" by a park (DL ¶7-10, ¶25) | |
| N3 | harm | tree pressure; dishes below adjacent canopies mean future pressure to prune or fell trees that contribute to character; LP GI9 conflict (DL ¶12-17) | |
| TR6(4) | harm | would prejudice an approved junction improvement scheme; the letter frames this as harm to highway safety (DL ¶21-23, ¶28) | |
| CO2(1)(b) | fail | 2024 NPPF ¶122 cited; 16 alternatives assessed, but rejection of D1-D3 (near masts, yet two masts already near the appeal site) and D16 insufficiently substantiated (DL ¶26-27) | |
| CO1(1) | benefit | replaces the Ash Grange site lost to a Notice to Quit; ESN contract and 5G; need "weighs in favour" but no weight label given (DL ¶24-25, ¶28) | |
| P3 | pass | no material harm to outlook of 123 Pilch Lane, about 10 m away (DL ¶18-20) |
Key facts
- Decision dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but reasons cite the December 2024 NPPF paragraphs 119, 120 and 122 (DL ¶25)
- Two existing monopoles already on Dovecot Avenue (DL ¶7)
- Approved council junction improvement scheme would conflict with the pole's position (DL ¶21-22)
- Replaces coverage from the Ash Grange site, lost ahead of demolition (DL ¶24)
Related decisions
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.