# Childwall Golf Club maintenance yard, Netherley

- **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes
- **Authority:** Liverpool (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009185
- **Application reference:** 26PT/0473
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Prior approval (GPDO Sch 2 Pt 16 Class A) for 30 m lattice telecoms tower with antennas, dishes, cabinets and fenced compound
- **Site context:** green-belt, PDL
- **Green Belt:** yes
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** CO1, HE7
- **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 STP4, HD1, UD1, UD2, GI1, GI2, GI4
- **Main issues:** siting and appearance
- **Tags:** telecoms-prior-approval, gb-policy-not-applied, costs-refused

## Summary
Prior approval appeal for a 30 m telecoms lattice mast in a golf club maintenance yard in the Liverpool Green Belt. Allowed. The inspector confirmed that Green Belt inappropriateness and VSC do not apply under GPDO Part 16. Only siting and appearance are assessed, with openness relevant only as context. The mast was acceptable against its mature tree backdrop. Costs were refused (local copy PINS-6009185-costs.pdf).

## Issues and findings
- **Green Belt policy.** "the fact that the appeal site is within the Liverpool Green Belt does not alter this … I have not assessed whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, nor have I applied the very special circumstances test. However, the openness, vegetation and landscape characteristics of the area form part of the context" (DL ¶5-6).
- **Siting and appearance: acceptable.** "visibility alone does not equate to harm" (DL ¶11).
- **NDHA clubhouse: setting preserved** (DL ¶14).
- **Costs.** Refused. The Council referred to network need, contrary to 2024 ¶123, but this caused no wasted expense (Costs DL ¶7).

## Planning balance
None. Prior approval is limited to siting and appearance.

## What made the difference
Siting inside an existing operational compound with mature tree screening.

## Transferable points
- Green Belt inappropriateness and VSC do not apply to GPDO Part 16 prior approvals. Openness is context for siting and appearance only (DL ¶5-6).
- "visibility alone does not equate to harm" for masts seen against tree cover (DL ¶11).

## Policy findings
- **GB6(2): not-engaged.** Part 16 prior approval is limited to siting and appearance; inappropriateness and VSC not assessed; openness and landscape only as context for siting/appearance (DL 5-6)
- **CO1: pass.** mast above tree canopy but seen within mature tree backdrop in an operational compound; "visibility alone does not equate to harm" (DL 9-17)
- **HE7: neutral.** setting of Art Deco clubhouse (NDHA) preserved (DL 13-14)

## Key facts
- Site is an enclosed golf-club maintenance compound ringed by mature trees (DL 8)
- Revised Framework said to have "relatively limited bearing" on a GPDO prior approval (DL 3)
- Costs application refused; Council's reliance on Green Belt policy and network-need arguments did not cause wasted expense (Costs DL 5-7)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009185
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3f0eaa1a-ed8f-4d3c-92b4-c92d99438640
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/71a4cf8c-7850-4c99-a46e-05754be45b6b

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009185.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.