Romaldor, St Johns Road, Wroxall (amateur radio mast)

Decision

dismissed, 2 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: P Barton

Authority

Isle of Wight (South East)

Appeal reference

6012036

Application reference

25/01703/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Lattice mast, about 13 m high, with a high-frequency beam antenna in the rear garden of a bungalow, for amateur radio use

Site context

inside settlement, national landscape

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

DP3, N4(4), S4(2)(c)

Development plan policies

Island Planning Strategy September 2026 C1, EV9

Main issues

character and appearance; National Landscape setting; living conditions

Summary

A 13 m amateur radio mast in the garden of a bungalow at Wroxall, in the setting of the Isle of Wight National Landscape. The inspector found significant harm to the street scene, more moderate harm to the setting of the National Landscape and an overbearing effect on neighbours. The letter runs the S4 balance, applies the S4(2)(c) "should be refused" trigger without naming the policy, and finds the benefits substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The policy emphasis of the parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not changed. As a result, I have not sought comments on the new version of the Framework" (DL ¶3).
• New local plan. "Appeal decisions must be based on the policies from the development plan prevailing at the time of determination" (DL ¶5).
• Character and National Landscape setting: HARM. "it would still create a very distinctive break in the skyline, forming an incongruous feature" (DL ¶11). "Although the harm to the setting of the NL would be at a more moderate level, I still attribute great weight to this harm" (DL ¶13).
• Living conditions: CONFLICT. "the installation would create a very close, dominant and overbearing feature, particularly to the immediate neighbouring bungalows" (DL ¶15).
• Benefits. "the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the proposal would facilitate significant public benefits in terms of its contribution towards community resilience, including emergency communications capability, and I afford this moderate weight in its favour" (DL ¶18).
• Plan consistency. "There is consistency between PS policies C1 and EV9, and national … policies DP3, N4 and L2" (DL ¶21; the … replaces "decision-making", which breaks across a line in the letter).
• S4(2)(c) trigger. "the proposal would fail to comply with one of the national … policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances, as set out in policy S4(2)(c) of the Framework" (DL ¶22; the … again replaces "decision-making").

Planning balance

S4(1), within a settlement. "I have found that the benefits of approving the appeal scheme would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in policy S4 of the Framework does not apply" (DL ¶23). The "great weight" given to National Landscape harm (DL ¶9, ¶13) is the December 2024 wording; N4(1) of the 2026 Framework says "Substantial weight". The slip is incidental in a dismissal.

What made the difference

Height and exposure: a mast well above the bungalow and the former railway line with nothing tall behind it, in gardens small enough that it dominated the neighbours. The claimed emergency communications benefit was asserted, not evidenced. A demountable pole was mentioned but was "not a determinative factor" (DL ¶19).

Transferable points

• The S4(2)(c) trigger is applied to a domestic mast: design and landscape-setting harm is treated as failing a "should be refused" policy, though the letter does not say which one or ask whether there is clear justification (DL ¶21–22).
• A local plan adopted during the appeal replaces the policies cited in the refusal; the parties are asked to comment on the new plan (DL ¶4–5).
• Harm to the setting of a National Landscape "at a more moderate level" still attracted the highest weight the inspector applied (DL ¶13).
• Community resilience benefits of amateur radio need evidence of what the installation adds to existing capability (DL ¶18).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Island Planning Strategy adopted 16 September 2026, between the site visit and the decision; the Core Strategy policies in the refusal were disregarded and the parties commented on the new plan (DL 4-5)
• Mast about 13 m high; antenna turning circle about 5.5 m; no tall structures or trees nearby to form a backdrop (DL 10-11)
• Site within the settlement of Wroxall and in the setting of the National Landscape, next to the Red Squirrel Trail (DL 8)
• Community resilience and emergency communications benefit not substantiated; moderate weight (DL 18)
• Parties not consulted on the August 2026 Framework - "policy emphasis ... have not changed" (DL 3)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.