To extend the height of an existing aerial from 6m to 10m

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 November 2025 by R J Redford MTCP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 December 2025. Appeal Ref: 6000923 8 Monks Close, Newcastle Under Lyme, Staffordshire ST5 3QU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Bruce Beard against the decision of Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00416/FUL. • The development proposed is to extend the height of an existing aerial from 6m to 10m. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The existing 6m aerial was approved by planning permission 23/00007/FUL. Between the submission of the planning application and issuing of the Decision Notice the proposed aerial’s height was changed from 9.5m to 10m. This decision considers the 10m height. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. Monks Close is a cul-de-sac in an established residential area which bisects the surrounding undulating topography. The properties along the road follow this topography and are mainly one-storey houses set back behind parking areas with modest rear gardens. The established nature of the area and mature planting creates a tranquil and verdant character whilst the low height and domestic nature of development along the road is instructive in its appearance. 5. The appeal site is situated on the higher side of Monks Close with trees to the rear. Due to the topography of the Close the existing 6m aerial is partially visible over the cheek of the host dwelling’s roof when traveling along the road towards the turning head. However, it is not visually intrusive due to the poles very slim profile and limited support / aerial wires, that it is predominantly screened by the host dwelling and does not extend above the trees to the rear or the existing lighting columns and telephone pole and cables on this part of the road. 6. The proposal would extend the aerial poles to a 10m height providing structure for various patterns of support / aerial wires to be strung. This additional height would be visible above the host dwelling. It would extend above the existing poles, columns and wires related to the street, and some of the trees to the rear. 2 7. Although the proposed poles and wires would be very slim and positioned in a linear layout, they would be visibly obvious above the host dwelling and development around it. As such, the proposal would be visually incongruous due to their height. This would be further exacerbated by the fall of the land around the site; the unique and somewhat industrial form the proposal would take when comparing it to traditional domestic paraphernalia found at and above roof level (such as tv aerials); the scale of the light columns and telegraph pole and cables within this residential area; and the permanency of that proposed. 8. The proposal would therefore represent a form of development which would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the immediate area and potentially impact the wider area due to the local topography. 9. That the appellant would ideally require a 13m high aerial, but a smaller one has been proposed, does not negate the harm of that proposed. 10. It is also acknowledged the appellant considers the proposal would provide improved telecommunications infrastructure. However, the proposal would be for the personal use of the appellant. It has not been substantively evidenced how this would be essential to support economic growth and social well-being, a need highlighted in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)1 , or provide widespread access as new communication facilities, as set out in the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan (LP)2. This therefore does not mitigate the harm identified. 11. Accordingly, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would fail to comply with Core Spatial Strategy Policy CSP1 and LP Policy T19 insofar as they seek development to respect visual quality in terms of the character and appearance. Other Matters 12. A lack of harm, in this case in relation to the living conditions of neighbours, is by definition neutral so cannot weigh for or against the proposal. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. R J Redford INSPECTOR 1 Paragraph 119 2 Support text for Policy T19, paragraph 5.44