93845_Statement in Support of the Notice of Review v2
Argyll and Bute Council · 14 September 2026
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 14 September 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Local Review Statement Submitted by Jamaal Hafiz Telent Rutland House 5 Allen Road Livingston EH54 6TQ Reference (Nominal Cell): 93845 Argyll and Bute Council Planning Authority Reference: 25/01573/PP Site: Inveraray Shinty Clubhouse, Dalmally Road, Inveraray, Argyll And Bute, PA32 8XD NGR: 209343 N: 708563 Proposal: The proposal is for the installation a 25m high swann column crowsnest headframe supporting 3no. antennas, 2no. 600mm transmission dishes, 3no. RRU’s, installation of 2no. equipment cabinets, palisade fenced compound and associated supporting apparatus
Page 2
Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Application Proposals & Site Description 3.0 Background to Requirements of Proposal; Alternative Site Evaluation; Radio Planning; and Health & Safety Issues 4.0 Planning Policy Framework 5.0 Grounds of Review & Council’s Reason for Refusal 6.0 Conclusion
Page 3
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 3 1.0 Introduction Experience 1.1 My name is Jamaal Hafiz, a RTPI qualified Town Planner with over 10 years’ experience in the telecommunications sector. I am currently employed in the position of Town Planner with Telent, a leading technology company and specialists in the design, build, support and management of the UK’s critical digital infrastructure and planning consultancy, offering specialist advice to the telecommunications industry. My current position requires me to provide guidance and support to the business and clients overseeing telecommunications delivery through planning across the UK. The Local Review 1.2 This submission is an independent expert view of the planning matters relating to the proposal based on the information provided by third parties. All technical and background information, which forms part of this submission, is assumed to be factually correct and accurate. 1.3 Telent has been instructed by EE Limited (“the Review Applicant”) to conduct a Local Review against the refusal of an application for the siting and appearance of the installation of installation a 25m high swann column crowsnest headframe supporting 3no. antennas, 2no. 600mm transmission dishes, 3no. RRU’s, installation of 2no. equipment cabinets, palisade fenced compound and associated supporting apparatus by Argyll and Bute Council (“the Council”). The application for Full Planning Permission (LPA ref: 25/01573/PP) was refused by the Council on 9th July 2026 for the following reasons: 1. By This proposed installation of a telecommunication equipment compound and mast is considered contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 24 (e) (i) (Digital Infrastructure) and LDP2 Policy 44 (a) & (d) (Telecommunications) as it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity, character and appearance of the surrounding area and would adversely impact on the Historic Environment contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policies 7 (Historic Assets) and 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and LDP2 Policy 15 (Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 17 (Conservation Areas) and Policy 20 (Gardens and Designed Landscapes). This Local Review is lodged against the decision of the Council.
Page 4
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 4 1.4 This statement will set out a brief outline of the Appellant’s case comprising a number of interrelated sections which will: • describe the Local Review site and surroundings in respect of visual character of the area (Section 2), • provide a background to the EE network requirement for the Local Review proposal and general statement in respect of health and safety issues (Section 3), • address alternative sites which have been considered as part of the appraisal (Section 3), • describe the planning policy framework, in relation to the proposal, in terms of both the national and local policy framework (Section 4), • focus on the grounds of Review and the Council’s reason for refusal (Section 5), and • submit our conclusion (Section 6). 1.5 Reference will be made to the background papers that comprise the application and further information attached as appendices to this statement, and it may expand on the documentation to support an opinion.
Page 5
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 5 2.0 Application Proposals and Site Description Application Proposals 2.1 The application proposed the erection of telecommunications apparatus, comprising the following components: The installation a 25m high swann column crowsnest headframe supporting 3no. antennas, 2no. 600mm transmission dishes, 3no. RRU’s, installation of 2no. equipment cabinets, palisade fenced compound and associated supporting apparatus. 2.2 The structure proposed is a 25m column. The proposed column design is not uncommon in such a setting that also provides structural benefit for the infrastructure provider which can support all the required technologies from both operators on a single structure. As such is transparent to an extent that allows light to pass through and promotes reduction in visual impact given the benefit trees within the surrounding area. If the column was any lower in height, it would require another installation, this would lead to the proliferation of masts contrary to planning policy. The column will be galvanised, with the aim of blending with the often grey skyline. The proposed development comprises a 25m column designed to support the required electronic communications equipment. The slimline monopole design is commonly used in similar environments as it provides an efficient and compact solution capable of accommodating the necessary apparatus for both operators on a single structure. By consolidating the equipment onto one installation, the proposal minimises the need for additional telecommunications infrastructure, thereby reducing the potential proliferation of masts in accordance with national planning policy. The column has a simple, uncluttered appearance with a relatively small footprint, helping to minimise its visual presence within the surrounding area. It will be finished in a grey colour to assist in blending with the skyline and prevailing environmental backdrop, reducing its prominence when viewed from the surrounding area. Whilst visible, the proposal represents a proportionate and functional design that balances operational requirements with visual considerations. 2.3 The ground-based equipment cabinets are to be light grey RAL7035 to match the column thereby minimising the visual impact on the area. The equipment will require maintenance consisting of approximately one site visit by engineers once every 3-6 months (likely 2-3 times maximum per year).
Page 6
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 6 2.4 The location of the site is indicated in the drawings forming part of this Local Review and as submitted to the Council for prior full planning permission. 2.5 It should be noted that this site relates to the NTQ Project as such there is a critical need to replace the existing site As mentioned at present, there is an existing site located at AFAM Services, Dalmaally Road that provides network coverage to the area, however, due to operational reasons it cannot no longer continue to provide coverage nor 5G coverage, there is an urgent requirement to decommission and remove the existing installation. Therefore, a new location for a replacement installation in order to maintain and improve coverage to this area is required. 2.6 The replacement site must be in the same geographical area to ensure that the network coverage is improved effectively. Therefore, the proposal to be assessed in this instance is for a 25m column and associated supporting apparatus will be located on land at Inveraray Shinty Clubhouse, Dalmally Road, Inveraray, Argyll And Bute, PA32 8XD.
Page 7
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 7 Local Review Site Description 2.7 The application site is located at the Inveraray Shinty Clubhouse, situated off Dalmally Road on the northern approach to Inveraray, Argyll and Bute (grid reference E: 209343, N: 708563). The site lies within the grounds of the Inveraray Castle Gardens and designated landscape, a nationally significant designed setting that contributes strongly to the character and historic context of the town. It is also within proximity but located outside of the Inveraray Conservation Area. The clubhouse is positioned adjacent to established playing fields and recreational land, with open views towards the surrounding wooded policies and the wider scenic backdrop of Loch Fyne and the surrounding hills. Access to the site is taken directly from Dalmally Road (A819), which forms a key route into Inveraray from the north. The immediate area has a predominantly rural and parkland character, with scattered woodland, open grassed areas, and designed estate features forming part of the wider Inveraray Castle landscape setting Additionally, the presence of the existing telecommunications mast within existing site at AFAM Services, Dalmaally Road is due to be decommissioned due to operational reasons and replaced by this proposal, provides an existing context for telecommunications equipment within the general locale. The relocated site is circa 115m west of the existing infrastructure. The topography of the site location and surrounding areas is such that the land elevation at the proposed development location is circa 60m. 2.8 The proposed 25m column has been selected as the most appropriate design for this location, providing a simple and compact form capable of accommodating the required telecommunications equipment on a single structure. The slimline profile and limited footprint minimise its visual presence within the surrounding landscape, whilst the grey finish will assist in reducing its prominence against the often overcast skyline. Although the site is situated within the Inveraray Castle Gardens and Designed Landscape and in close proximity to the Inveraray Conservation Area, the proposal has been carefully designed to minimise visual impact as far as practicable. Existing tree belts to the west will provide a natural backdrop and, where available, partial screening of the structure and associated equipment, helping the development to assimilate into its surroundings. Furthermore, the site lies adjacent to, but outside, the West Loch Fyne (Coast) Local Landscape Area, and the combination of existing vegetation,
Page 8
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 8 topography and intervening built form limits the extent of views from surrounding sensitive receptors. 2.9 In addition to the above, the proposal will be viewed within the context of existing infrastructure and development in the surrounding area, including the adjacent highway corridor and associated street furniture. These existing elements provide a functional setting for the proposed telecommunications installation, ensuring that the column does not appear visually isolated or incongruous within the wider landscape. Whilst the surrounding designated landscape is recognised for its historic and scenic significance, the proposal has been sited to minimise its effect on the character and appearance of the area whilst delivering essential digital infrastructure. 2.10 The height of the proposed 25m column has been kept to the minimum necessary to meet the operational requirements of the telecommunications network and to provide the required coverage to the local area. A lower structure would not achieve the necessary coverage objectives and could result in the need for additional installations elsewhere, leading to unnecessary infrastructure proliferation. The proposal has therefore been designed to balance operational requirements with visual considerations. The installation will support modern electronic communications infrastructure, including 4G and 5G services, whilst also forming part of the network that underpins the Emergency Services Network (ESN), ensuring resilient and reliable communications for the emergency services as well as improved connectivity for residents, businesses and visitors.
Page 9
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 9 3.0 Background to EE’s Requirements: Need for the Site; Alternative Sites Evaluation, and Health & Safety Issues Need for the site 3.1 The requirement for a replacement mobile telecommunications base station to provide network coverage to Inveraray is the result of the impending decommissioning and removal of the existing EE installation at AFAM Services, Dalmally Road, which has historically provided coverage to the area. Due to operational reasons, the existing installation can no longer continue to provide the required level of service and is unable to accommodate the operator's ongoing network requirements, including the provision of 5G services. Consequently, there is an urgent requirement to replace the existing installation in order to maintain existing coverage, improve network performance and support the Emergency Services Network (ESN). It is also of note that the operator previously secured planning permission for a replacement telecommunications installation at Inveraray Depot under planning application reference 21/02463/PP. However, despite planning permission being granted, the operator has been unable to implement that consent due to legal constraints relating to the site. As a result, the approved development cannot be progressed and an alternative replacement location is required. The replacement installation must be located within the same geographical area to ensure that existing network coverage is maintained and enhanced, whilst addressing the coverage deficit that would result from the removal of the existing site. Following a comprehensive site search and technical assessment, the proposed location at Inveraray Shinty Clubhouse, Dalmally Road, Inveraray, Argyll and Bute, PA32 8XD has been identified as the most suitable and deliverable option. The proposal therefore comprises the installation of a 25m telecommunications column and associated supporting apparatus to provide resilient 4G and 5G coverage to the surrounding area, including connectivity for the Emergency Services Network. 3.2 A total of 26 alternative siting and design options were considered to provide this replacement coverage, but duly discounted as unavailable or less desirable in terms of integration into their environment when compared to the Local Review proposal. The alternative options considered were:
Page 10
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 10 1. Fire Station Tower RT - Approx. NGR: 209452, 708571 This structure would not be suitable to accommodate the additional load of the telecoms apparatus. 2. Fire Station GF - Approx. NGR: 209460, 708565 This site would have ICNIRP issues due to the adjacent fire station tower. 3. Inveraray Co-op GF – Approx. NGR: 209393, 708281 Could not get sufficient dish link at this location to support other rural sites around Inveraray. 4. Dalmally Road SW - Approx. NGR: 209373, 708670 This site would have too great a visual impact on the area due to street furniture of significantly less height and lack of natural screening. 5. Bell Tower RT - Approx. NGR: 209468, 708451 This site was discounted as no stealth design could be implemented which would mitigate the visual impact given the building listing. 6. The Avenue SW - Approx. NGR: 209524, 708453 This site would have too great a visual impact on the area due to street furniture of significantly less height and lack of natural screening. 7. Land South of Dalmally Road 2 - Approx. NGR: 209113, 708291 This site would require a very high/ bulky tower due to the surrounding trees and would have a greater visual impact than that of the proposed. 8. Land South of Dalmally Road - Approx. NGR: 209224, 708487 This site would have too great a visual impact on the area due to the openness of the site and lack of natural screening. 9. Inveraray Primary School - Approx. NGR: 209412, 708455 This site would have too great a visual impact on the area due the lack of vertical structures to mitigate the visual impact and lack of natural screening. 10. Cameron Auto Repairs GF - Approx. NGR: 209099, 708124 The site is too far to the southwest of the search area to provide the required coverage to the target area. 11. The Inveraray Inn RT - Approx. NGR: 209551, 708592 The building is not suitable to host the apparatus due to the pitched roof
Page 11
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 11 design. 12. Town House RT - Approx. NGR: 209632, 708561 The building is not suitable to host the apparatus due to the pitched roof design. 13. Main Street SW - Approx. NGR: 209655, 708544 This site would have too great a visual impact on the area due the lack of tall street furniture to mitigate the visual impact and lack of natural screening. 14. Front Street CP - Approx. NGR: 209667, 708565 This site would have too great a visual impact on the area due the lack of tall street furniture to mitigate the visual impact and lack of natural screening. 15. Inveraray Castle RT - Approx. NGR: 209589, 709243 This site is too far to the north of the search area to provide the required coverage to the target area. 16. Land off Upper Avenue - Approx. NGR: 209076, 708696 This site is too far to the west of the search area to provide the required coverage to the target area. 17. Inveraray Parish Church RT - Approx. NGR: 209591, 708422 This site was discounted as no stealth design could be implemented which would mitigate the visual impact. 18. Inveraray Jail RT - Approx. NGR: 209650, 708393 This site was discounted as no stealth design could be implemented which would mitigate the visual impact. 19. George Hotel RT - Approx. NGR: 209567, 708347 The building is not suitable to host the apparatus due to the pitched roof. 20. Inveraray Coach Park GF - Approx. NGR: 209402, 708701 This site would require a very high/bulky tower due to the surrounding trees and would have a greater visual impact than that of the proposed. 21. Inveraray TE - Approx. NGR: 209356, 708586 Unable to agree to a location on the property that works for all parties.
Page 12
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 12 22. Spoil Heap VF SS - Approx. NGR: 209178, 708304 This site would have to be significantly developed to accommodate both EE and Vodafone. This would require a very high/bulky tower due to the surrounding trees and would have a greater visual impact than that of the proposed. 23. Upper Riochan Factory GF – Approx. NGR: 209047, 708115 The site is too far to the southwest of the search area to provide the required coverage to the target area. 24. Barn Brae SW – Approx. NGR: 209282, 707959 Radio confirmed this site would not work from a coverage perspective. 25. Inveraray Co-op CP 2 – Approx. NGR: 209358, 708269 This location was not supported by the landowner and current location was agreed. 26. Inveraray Depot GF – Approx. NGR: 209388, 708467 The operator previously progressed a site at Inverary Depot under planning application ref: 21/02463/PP however the operator cannot impose the planning approval and proceed to build due to legal issues as such this location cannot be progressed.
Page 13
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 13 The discounted sites that were identified as potential sites are shown on the map below:
Page 14
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 14 Health & Safety Issues 3.3 The relevant statement of ICNIRP compliance for the Local Review proposal was submitted as part of the application and as required the Council’s planning officers did not consider this matter as part of their determination of the proposal. 3.4 As the emissions from the Local Review proposal will meet the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines, as recommended by the Stewart Report, in accordance with the relevant guidance it should not be necessary to consider health effects further. Site Summary 3.9 In summary, the site search has been extensively undertaken to establish the optimum siting and design for a new base station, whilst respecting the nature and character of the area and minimising environmental impact, as far as technologically feasible. The following section will outline the local and national policy context against which the Local Review proposal should be assessed. This assessment is contained in Section 5 of this statement.
Page 15
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 15 4. Planning Policy Framework 4.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the determination of planning applications are to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National Planning Framework 4 was formally adopted on the 13th of February 2023 and is now part of the statutory Development Plan. NPF4 provides the national planning policy context for the assessment of all planning applications. The adopted The Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 was adopted on 28th February 2024, and replaces the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and its associated Supplementary Guidance (March 2016), and Supplementary Guidance 2 (December 2016). National Planning Guidance 4.2 Planning National Planning Policy Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) superseded NPPG 19. This document condenses the advice outlined previously although the broad principles of promoting the expansion of electronic communications networks remains the same: National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) The NPF4 was adopted 13th February 2023. It details the Scottish Government’s long-term plan for what Scotland could be in 2045 and will influence planning decisions. The NPF4 encourages LDP’s to support the delivery of digital infrastructure, including fixed line, and mobile connectivity, particularly in areas with gaps in connectivity and barrier to digital access. Policy 24 reads “Development proposals that incorporate appropriate, universal, and future-proofed digital infrastructure will be supported” Part 1– sets out an overarching spatial strategy for Scotland in the future. This includes priorities, spatial principles and action areas. This should be used to guide the preparation of regional spatial strategies, local development plans and local place plans. The strategy is relevant to wider policies and strategies relating to land use. It also sets out aspirations to stimulate green prosperity, stating that natural assets and environmental quality underpin the area’s main economic sectors and must therefore be protected, restored and used sustainably. A flexible approach to planning
Page 16
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 16 will help to attract investment, grow and diversify businesses and enable local entrepreneurship, micro enterprises, self-employment and social enterprises to flourish. Remote working can be capitalised on to build economically active local communities. The Plan acknowledges that achieving these aspirations will require the continued roll out of high-quality digital infrastructure and maintenance and decarbonisation of transport routes to wider markets. Part 2– sets out proposed national developments that support the spatial strategy. Policy 14 relates to design, quality and place. It aims to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle. Policy 14 states: a) Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. Part 3– sets out policies for the development and use of land which are to be applied in the preparation of local development plans; local place plans; masterplans and briefs; and for determining the range of planning consents. This part should be taken as a whole, and all relevant policies should be applied to each application. Part 3 is also a ‘Planning Policy Handbook’ and covers the following themes: • Sustainable Places (Universal policies) • Liveable Places • Productive Places • Distinctive Places In respect of ‘Digital infrastructure’, NPF4 states ‘We want our all of our places to be digitally connected. Digital connectivity has a central role to play in unlocking the potential of our places and the economy and in opening up more remote parts of Scotland for investment and population growth. This will play an increasingly important role in supporting essential services including healthcare and education. We want to ensure that no areas are left behind by closing the digital divide. The planning system should continue to support the roll-out of digital infrastructure across all of Scotland,
Page 17
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 17 ensuring that policies recognise the importance of future-proofing infrastructure provision whilst addressing impacts on local communities and the environment’. Policy 24 relates to ‘Digital Infrastructure’ and states: a) Local development plans should support the delivery of digital infrastructure, particularly in areas with gaps in connectivity and barriers to digital access. b) Development proposals should incorporate appropriate, universal and futureproof fed digital infrastructure. This should be done in consultation with service providers. c) Development proposals that deliver new digital services or provide technological improvements, particularly in areas with no or low connectivity capacity, should be supported. Planning authorities should not question the need for the service to be provided where proposals are clearly aligned with fulfilling the delivery of local or national policy objectives which support the roll-out of digital infrastructure in areas with no or low connectivity where there are benefits of this connectivity for communities and the local economy. d) Development proposals for telecommunications development should be supported where: • the visual and amenity impact of the proposed development has been minimised through careful siting, design and where appropriate landscaping; • it has been demonstrated that all practicable options and alternative sites have been considered, including the possibility of using existing masts, structures and buildings and/or site sharing; • there is no physical obstruction to aerodrome operations, technical sites or existing transmitter/receiver facilities. e) Development proposals that are likely to have an adverse effect on the operation of existing digital infrastructure or on the delivery of strategic roll- out plans should not be supported unless appropriate mitigation measures can be provided. In considering the above, as the proposal would in effect see the relocation and upgrading of an existing telecommunications site within the general
Page 18
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 18 locale whereby the council has accepted the general locale as being suitable, on balance, in terms of siting of such equipment and of a suitable design, then given the similar nature of the proposal and its location then there would be little in the way of further consideration in terms of any perceived visual impact from that previously considered appropriate in this instance. Given the relocation of an extant permission and therefore site, while the general local has been considered as being acceptable the proposed site is the closest to that of the existing site practicable in this instance. Furthermore, in this instance there is some existing vegetation to which the revised site would be set behind and would provide some additional screening that would lessen any visual impact/prominence. Scottish Planning Policy 2014 (SPP) Scottish Planning Policy published in June 2014, is a statement of Scottish Government policy on how national important land use planning matters should be addressed across the country. SPP is supplemented by a series of Planning Advice Notes (PANs). Paragraphs 292 – 300 of the SPP relates specifically to Supporting Digital Connectivity, including telecommunications developments. It highlights the importance of our digital infrastructure, across the whole of Scotland, including urban and rural areas and confirms that Scotland’s economy and social networks depend heavily on high-quality digital infrastructure. To facilitate investment across Scotland, planning has an important role to play in strengthening digital communications capacity and coverage across Scotland. The proposed development accords with all these aspects of the NPF4 and SPP in that it will provide the wider area with improved network provision, bringing a range of associated economic and technical benefits. Paragraph 295 of the SPP confirms that Local development plans should provide a consistent basis for decision-making by setting out the criteria which will be applied when determining planning applications for communications equipment. They should ensure that the following options are considered when selecting sites and designing base stations: • mast or site sharing; • installation on buildings or other existing structures;
Page 19
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 19 • installing the smallest suitable equipment, commensurate with technological requirements; • concealing or disguising masts, antennas, equipment housing and cable runs using design and camouflage techniques where appropriate; and • installation of ground-based masts. Paragraph 296 confirms that “Local development plans should set out the matters to be addressed in planning applications for specific developments, including: • an explanation of how the proposed equipment fits into the wider network; • a description of the siting options (primarily for new sites) and design options which satisfy operational requirements, alternatives considered, and the reasons for the chosen solution; • details of the design, including height, materials and all components of the proposal; • details of any proposed landscaping and screen planting, where appropriate; • an assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed development in combination with existing equipment in the area; • a declaration that the equipment and installation is designed to be in full compliance with the appropriate ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure to radiofrequency radiation131; and • an assessment of visual impact, if relevant. It is considered that the proposal has address all matters set out in the ‘model’ telecommunications policy. The proposal would result in development that would see the removal of a previously approved telecommunications site location whereby the suitability in terms of siting and appearance has already been established and accepted by the Council. The proposed development will have no significant detrimental or demonstrable effect on the character and appearance of the local to that previously considered acceptable. In assessing applications for telecommunications development, paragraph 298 of the SPP confirms that “Consideration should be given to how
Page 20
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 20 proposals for infrastructure to deliver new services or infrastructure to improve existing services will contribute to fulfilling the objectives for digital connectivity set out in the Scottish Government’s World Class 2020 document. For developments that will deliver entirely new connectivity – for example, mobile connectivity in a “not spot” – consideration should be given to the benefits of this connectivity for communities and the local economy”. Paragraph 299 then states that. “All components of equipment should be considered together and designed and positioned as sensitively as possible, though technical requirements and constraints may limit the possibilities. Developments should not physically obstruct aerodrome operations, technical sites or existing transmitter/receiver facilities. The cumulative visual effects of equipment should be taken into account”. The scheme has been designed to ensure that it not only meets the technical requirements but also fully considers the site context and any potential views from outlying areas, which is why the nearest suitable location to the extant permission site is proposed in this instance. Paragraph 300. States that “Planning authorities should not question the need for the service to be provided nor seek to prevent competition between operators. The planning system should not be used to secure objectives that are more properly achieved under other legislation. Emissions of radiofrequency radiation are controlled and regulated under other legislation, and it is therefore not necessary for planning authorities to treat radiofrequency radiation as a material consideration”. The proposal would be consistent with the aims of the SPP in this instance, particularly when considering that the application includes ICNIRP certification confirming that any emissions of radiofrequency radiation are at an appropriate and safe level. Planning Advice Note: PAN 62 Radio Telecommunications PAN 62 refers to Radio Telecommunications and states that the NPPG (now superseded by the SPP and FPF3) considers the general siting and design principles for telecommunications. It states that such development should be undertaken in a manner that minimises environmental impact and should have a sensitive design in both urban and rural areas. Paragraphs 8 – 17 of Planning Advice Note 62: Radio Telecommunications broadly explain how mobile networks operate. Although the operators’ networks are mature, improvements, upgrades and new sites are required
Page 21
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 21 for their networks for a number of reasons. For example, to increase capacity in an area of high demand, to provide new or improved network coverage in terms of quality as well as extent, or perhaps to provide coverage over a new development area such as a new housing estate or industrial park. Paragraph 32 identifies two components associated with minimising the contrast between telecommunication equipment and its surrounding as; minimising the contrast between equipment and people’s expectations of a particular scene and minimising the contrast between equipment and its immediate setting of background. For example, a column generally fits the expectations within rural landscapes. Paragraph 33 further identifies ways in which to minimise these contrasts as follows; • select a shape and material appropriate to the character of the area; • keep the shape simple with clean lines, and fit all the elements, such as antennas, cables and ladders within the visual envelope of the basic shape; • develop a composition where the properties seem in proportion and balanced, for example masts that taper to the top are usually more acceptable; • minimise the number of separate visual elements in a base station; and • use regularity, order and symmetry in positioning equipment. Furthermore, para 34 identifies a series of options that should be considered as a guide in selecting the siting and design of telecommunications equipment in order to minimise any resultant visual contrast. The implementation of telecommunications equipment is site-specific and therefore should be considered against the site conditions and coverage capacity requirements in addition to technical constraints and landscape character. The series of options is therefore a guide or checklist rather than a sequence to be rigidly followed. The options are: • installing small scale equipment; • concealing or disguising equipment;
Page 22
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 22 • mast sharing; • site sharing; • installing on existing buildings or other structures; and • erecting a new ground based mast. As can be seen from the above, the proposal would result in the removal of an existing site within the area, and the new base station proposed at land at Shinty Clubhouse will remain in an area whereby the acceptability on matters regarding siting and appearance has already been accepted, would be consistent with both the aims of national and local policy. The proposal would therefore be consistent with National policy guidance as set out above. The special operational and technical factors that require specific siting of base stations should be balanced by the need to minimise environmental and visual impact. However, there is now far greater emphasis that visual impact should not override significant radio planning requirements to achieve mobile coverage to a particular area, particularly with the need to support the massively growing and intensifying demand for mobile communications across the UK. 4.15 As can be seen from the above, the National Guidance clearly acknowledges the benefits of modern electronic communications and seeks to encourage such development as being essential due to their role in supporting a modern economy, contributing to sustainable objectives, and enhancing local community access to a range of goods and services. Local planning authorities are advised to respond positively to proposals for electronic communications development and this must include an understanding of the associated special problems and technical needs of developing and upgrading communications networks. Public benefits are defined within the National Guidance and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress. Benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits. The existing telecommunications installation at AFAM Services, Dalmally Road has historically provided network coverage to Inveraray and the surrounding area. However, for operational reasons, the site can no longer
Page 23
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 23 meet the operator's network requirements and must be decommissioned and removed. A replacement installation is therefore required to maintain existing coverage, facilitate the rollout of enhanced 4G and 5G services, and ensure continued support for the Emergency Services Network (ESN). The public benefits of the proposal are significant. Should this Local Review be dismissed, the operator would be unable to deliver a replacement installation capable of maintaining the established network coverage currently provided within the locality. This would result in a significant reduction in mobile connectivity for residents, businesses and visitors, with consequential impacts on access to reliable voice and data services, including communications relied upon by the Emergency Services Network. Such an outcome would undermine national planning objectives to support high-quality digital infrastructure and would deprive the local community of enhanced 4G and 5G connectivity, reducing network resilience and capacity in an area where reliable mobile communications are increasingly essential for everyday life, business activity and tourism.
Page 24
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 24 Local Planning Policy 4.16 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the determination of planning applications are to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National Planning Framework 4 was formally adopted on the 13th of February 2023 and is now part of the statutory Development Plan. While NPF4 provides the national planning policy context for the assessment of planning applications, the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. 4.17 As such the following local policies are relevant to the Local Review site: ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 (February 2024) The following policies are of relevance: Policy 10 – Design: All Development The design of any development must: • Demonstrate an understanding of and appropriate response to the proposed development site and wider context including consideration of character and, where applicable, urban grain; and • Acknowledge the scale, mass and spirit of nearby buildings but steer clear of mimicry and pastiche; and • Incorporate existing and enhancing features where applicable; and • Avoid falsification of period details; and • Use appropriate proportions for building elements and details including, where applicable, massing and fenestration; and • Use materials that are harmonious with the context but embody honesty and legibility of contemporary design; and • Consider the embodied energy and durability of proposed materials; and • Incorporate the use of flood resistant and resilient materials and construction methods. Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Development proposals affecting nationally important Gardens and Designed Landscapes will be supported where they protect, preserve or enhance their cultural significance, character and integrity and where
Page 25
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 25 proposals will not significantly impact upon important views to, from and within the site, or its setting. Development proposals should protect and preserve in situ regionally or locally important Gardens and Designed Landscapes and their settings, wherever feasible. All proposals affecting designated or non-designated Gardens and Designed Landscapes or their settings shall be accompanied by an assessment that follows the principles set out in the most up-to-date relevant guidance published by Historic Environment Scotland. In assessing proposals for development in or adjacent to gardens and designed landscapes particular attention will be paid to the impact of the proposal on all of the following: • The artistic, historical, horticultural, architectural, scenic, and nature conservation interest of the site, AND • The site’s original design concept, overall quality and setting, AND • Trees and woodlands and the site’s contribution to local landscape character within the site including the boundary walls, pathways, garden terraces or water features. Policy 44 – Telecommunications There is a presumption in favour of proposals for telecommunications development provided that all the following criteria are met: a) the siting and appearance of the proposed apparatus and associated structures should seek to minimise impact on the visual amenity, character or appearance of the surrounding area; b) if located on a building, apparatus and associated structures should be sited and designed in order to seek to minimise impact on the external appearance of the host building; c) if proposing a new mast, it should be demonstrated that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting apparatus on existing buildings, masts or other structures. Such evidence should accompany any application made to the Planning Authority; d) the development should not have an unacceptable impact on areas of ecological interest, Areas of Wild Land, National Scenic Areas, historic gardens and designed landscapes, other areas of landscape importance, the Green Belt, the coast, archaeological sites, conservation areas, areas
Page 26
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 26 of townscape quality or buildings of architectural or historic interest. Special care should be exercised in these locations. When considering applications for telecommunications development, the Planning Authority will have regard to the operational requirements of telecommunications networks and the technical limitations of the technology. Applicants will be expected to demonstrate compliance with ICNIRP guidelines. Policy 17 – Conservation Areas Development: There is a presumption against development that does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an existing or proposed conservation area or its setting. New development within these areas and on sites affecting their settings must respect the architectural, historic and other special qualities that give rise to their actual or proposed designation and conform to the following national policies and guidance including, but not limited to, those detailed as ‘Related Documents’ under section 4.39 above and the area’s Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (if in place). The developer is expected to satisfactorily demonstrate to the planning authority that the effect of a proposed development on a conservation area and its wider setting has been assessed and that measures will be taken to preserve or enhance the special interest of the area. The use of appropriate design statements, character appraisals and conservation plans are expected to facilitate this assessment. Applications for planning permission in principle will not normally be considered appropriate for proposed development in conservation areas. The contribution which trees make towards the character or appearance of a conservation area will be taken into account when considering development proposals. B. Demolition: Proposals for the total or substantial demolition of a building within or affecting the character or appearance of a conservation area or its setting will be considered as if the structure was listed – as set out in Policy 16 – Listed Buildings (B).
Page 27
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 27 Policy 15 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Built Environment Development proposals will not be acceptable where they fail to: protect, preserve, conserve or enhance the special characteristics and/or cultural significance of the historic built environment in terms of its location, scale, form, design or proposed use; or avoid any cumulative effect upon the special characteristics and/or cultural significance of designated built environment sites. Proposals for development that would affect either a designated or non- designated heritage asset or their setting will be expected to demonstrate that they would enable positive change by balancing the need to secure the long-term sustainability of the asset against the need to address the impacts of climate change and to meet the council’s wider regeneration objectives, where appropriate. Detailed Policies Listed Buildings Listed Buildings, their curtilage structures and their settings make a significant contribution to the character and amenity of Argyll and Bute. They are a valuable resource that can stimulate enjoyment of the wider environment and act as an important medium for education, economic development, recreation and tourism. As such, they must be protected. Listing covers the interior as well as the exterior of the building and extends to its curtilage. Historic Environment Scotland will be consulted on planning applications that would affect a category A listed building or its setting, and on applications for listed building consent for works to category A and B listed buildings, or for a proposal by the planning authority itself affecting a listed building of any category. Where appropriate the planning authority will also seek the views of the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland and Architecture Design Scotland. In the event of the planning authority being minded to grant consent for the demolition (in whole or part) of a listed building it will notify Historic Environment Scotland (HES) at least 3 months prior to the start of the works, to allow for adequate recording of the listed building and its features and context. Once a listed building has been demolished the planning authority will notify Historic Environment Scotland.
Page 28
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 28 5.0 Grounds of Review 5.1 The Appellant respectfully submits that the Planning Authority erred in refusing planning permission for the proposed telecommunications installation. The refusal is based on the conclusion that the development would adversely impact the visual amenity, character and appearance of the surrounding area and the historic environment, contrary to NPF4 Policies 7, 14 and 24 together with LDP2 Policies 15, 17, 20 and 44. 5.2 The Appellant considers that the decision fails to properly balance the limited visual impacts of the proposal against the significant public benefits arising from maintaining and enhancing digital communications infrastructure. Furthermore, insufficient weight has been afforded to the operational and technical requirements of the development, the comprehensive site selection process undertaken, and the exceptional circumstances surrounding the determination of the application. 5.3 The grounds of Review rest on the following matters: 1. The Planning Authority's prolonged delay in determining the application materially prejudiced the Appellant and altered the planning context against which the proposal was assessed. 2. That the Planning Authority afforded disproportionate weight to the perceived visual and heritage impacts of the proposal. 3. Insufficient weight has been given to the operational need and public benefits associated with the proposal. 4. The Appellant has demonstrated that the proposed location represents the only suitable, available and deliverable site capable of meeting the operational requirements of the network.
Page 29
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 29 Ground 1 – The Planning Authority's Delay Materially Prejudiced the Application 5.4 The Appellant considers that significant weight should be attached to the exceptional delay experienced during the determination of this application. The application was submitted on 17 September 2025 yet was not determined until 9 July 2026, representing a determination period of almost ten months. This is substantially longer than the statutory determination period for planning applications and significantly exceeds the timeframe within which applicants are entitled to expect a planning decision. 5.5 Throughout the determination process the Appellant made repeated attempts to progress the application and sought updates from the Planning Authority regarding the outstanding determination. As the delay continued, the Appellant expressly raised concerns that the prolonged determination period was materially altering the planning circumstances against which the proposal would ultimately be assessed. 5.6 The Appellant specifically advised the Planning Authority that withdrawal of the application was neither appropriate nor justified and requested that the application continue to determination on its planning merits. In correspondence to the Planning Officer, the Appellant explained that the application had already been under consideration for approximately seven months and that continued delay risked fundamentally prejudicing the assessment. 5.7 The Appellant also expressly highlighted that, at the time the application was submitted, the adjacent residential development under planning reference 24/00823/PP had not been determined. Consequently, had the Planning Authority determined the application within a reasonable period, the approved housing development would not have formed part of the planning context. The Appellant therefore advised the Planning Authority that: "the applicant is concerned that the significant delay in determination has resulted in a change to the planning context which is now being relied upon in the assessment of the proposal. In our view, this creates a situation where the applicant is being prejudiced by the Planning Authority's delay, and the planning balance is being artificially shifted post- submission." This concern was clearly communicated before the application was determined.
Page 30
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 30 5.8 Despite these concerns being raised directly with the Planning Authority, the application remained undetermined for several further months. 5.9 When the application was eventually determined, the Planning Authority's assessment had materially changed as a consequence of planning circumstances that did not exist when the application was originally submitted. 5.10 The Officer's Report places considerable emphasis upon the approved residential development and the future aspirations for the wider Area for Action, concluding that the proposal would conflict with those aspirations and adversely affect the future character of the locality. 5.11 Whilst it is accepted that planning applications are generally determined having regard to the planning circumstances existing at the date of determination, it is respectfully submitted that the Local Review Body should give careful consideration to the fact that these changed circumstances arose solely because of the Planning Authority's own delay. 5.12 The Appellant had no ability to influence or control the speed with which the application was determined and should not be materially disadvantaged because the Planning Authority failed to determine the application within a reasonable timeframe. 5.13 Indeed, had the application been determined within the statutory determination period, the adjacent housing approval would not have been a material consideration and many of the concerns subsequently expressed by Officers regarding the future residential environment would simply not have arisen. 5.14 The Planning Authority's own reasoning illustrates the significance afforded to this altered planning context. 5.15 The Officer concludes that the proposal would fail to integrate with the future aspirations for the locality and that the telecommunications installation would have an unacceptable effect upon the wider character of the area, relying upon planning circumstances which were fundamentally different from those existing at the date of submission. 5.16 The Appellant respectfully submits that this has resulted in an inherently unfair planning balance.
Page 31
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 31 5.17 Rather than assessing the proposal principally against the circumstances existing when the application was made, substantial reliance has been placed upon planning changes that occurred only because the application remained undetermined for almost ten months. 5.18 The Planning Authority was fully aware of the Appellant's concerns regarding prejudice arising from delay. 5.19 Those concerns were not speculative; they identified precisely the issue which ultimately became central to the refusal. 5.20 Despite this, the application continued to remain undetermined until those planning circumstances had changed. 5.21 The Local Review Body is therefore respectfully invited to recognise that the procedural history of this application is highly unusual and represents an important material consideration when assessing the overall planning balance. 5.22 This ground is not advanced on the basis that delay alone renders the refusal unreasonable or invalid. 5.23 Rather, it is advanced because the delay materially altered the planning context against which the proposal was assessed and resulted in considerable weight being afforded to planning circumstances which did not exist when the application was submitted. 5.24 The Appellant respectfully submits that this is a significant factor which weighs in favour of allowing the Local Review and should be taken into account alongside the substantive planning merits of the proposal. Ground 2 – The Planning Authority Has Afforded Disproportionate Weight to the Perceived Visual and Heritage Impacts of the Proposal and Failed to Properly Apply NPF4 Policy 24 5.25 The sole reason for refusal relates to the Planning Authority's conclusion that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the visual amenity, character and appearance of the surrounding area and would adversely affect the historic environment, contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policies 7, 14 and 24 together with LDP2 Policies 15, 17, 20 and 44. The refusal reason states:
Page 32
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 32 "This proposed installation of a telecommunication equipment compound and mast is considered contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 24 (e)(i) (Digital Infrastructure) and LDP2 Policy 44 (a) & (d) (Telecommunications) as it is considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity, character and appearance of the surrounding area and would adversely impact on the Historic Environment..." 5.26 Whilst the Appellant accepts that the proposal will inevitably introduce a new vertical structure into the landscape, it is respectfully submitted that the Planning Authority has failed to adequately demonstrate why the identified impacts are of such significance that they outweigh the substantial public benefits arising from the proposal. 5.27 Throughout the Officer's assessment considerable emphasis is placed upon the proposal's relationship with the surrounding historic environment, including the Inveraray Castle Designed Landscape, Conservation Area and the wider Area for Action. However, the assessment provides only limited explanation as to why the proposal would result in unacceptable harm, instead reaching a broad planning judgement that the proposal would conflict with the aspirations for the area. 5.28 It is submitted that this conclusion does not fully reflect the existing character of the locality. 5.29 The Local Review site is not located within an undeveloped rural landscape, but within an area containing a number of established built features and infrastructure including the Shinty Club, associated parking areas, the Roads Depot and existing transport infrastructure. The proposal therefore forms part of an already developed edge of settlement rather than introducing telecommunications infrastructure into an isolated or undeveloped landscape. 5.30 The Planning Authority also appears to have afforded considerable weight to future aspirations for the area rather than the existing character of the site and its surroundings. 5.31 Whilst future development proposals are capable of being material considerations, planning decisions must nevertheless be based upon a balanced assessment of the proposal within its actual context. In this instance, the proposed mast would occupy a relatively small operational compound and would not sterilise surrounding land or prevent the implementation of adjoining development proposals. 5.11 Accordingly, it is considered that the Planning Authority has overstated the
Page 33
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 33 degree to which the proposal would undermine the wider objectives for the area. 5.12 Importantly, the Officer's assessment acknowledges that the proposal has sought to minimise its impacts through careful siting and design. 5.13 The application was accompanied by detailed supporting information demonstrating that the location had been selected following an extensive search of alternative sites and that the proposed height represented the minimum necessary to achieve the required operational coverage and microwave transmission path. 5.14 Rather than engaging in detail with this evidence, the Planning Authority has simply concluded that the proposal would remain unacceptable due to its visual presence. The Appellant respectfully submits that this does not represent the balanced assessment required by NPF4 Policy 24. 5.15 NPF4 Policy 24 is not a policy which seeks to prevent the provision of telecommunications infrastructure where it is visible. 5.16 On the contrary, the policy recognises the importance of modern digital infrastructure and requires proposals to minimise environmental impacts whilst recognising the technical and operational requirements associated with electronic communications development. 5.17 By their very nature, telecommunications installations must extend above surrounding buildings and vegetation in order to function effectively. Complete visual screening is therefore rarely achievable, particularly where a clear line of sight is required for microwave transmission and effective radio coverage. 5.18 The fact that infrastructure is visible should not, in itself, lead to the conclusion that it is unacceptable. 5.19 The Appellant considers that the Planning Authority has effectively treated visibility as synonymous with unacceptable harm. 5.20 No meaningful consideration has been given to the extent to which the proposal has sought to minimise its visual effects through its siting, design and location.
Page 34
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 34 5.21 The proposed 25-metre monopole represents the minimum height capable of maintaining the required operational functionality. The height has not been selected arbitrarily, but is dictated by the surrounding topography, mature tree cover and the requirement to achieve a clear line of sight to the wider telecommunications network. 5.22 Reducing the height of the structure would fundamentally compromise its operational effectiveness and prevent the infrastructure from fulfilling its intended purpose. 5.23 Similarly, insufficient consideration has been given to the fact that telecommunications infrastructure forms an established and essential component of modern infrastructure. 5.24 National planning policy recognises that advanced digital communications infrastructure is fundamental to economic growth, social inclusion and public safety. 5.25 Whilst visual impacts are clearly material considerations, these impacts must be assessed alongside the acknowledged public benefits arising from maintaining resilient mobile communications. 5.26 In this instance, the Planning Authority has identified visual harm but has provided only limited analysis as to why those impacts are considered sufficient to outweigh the significant benefits arising from maintaining and enhancing digital connectivity within Inveraray. 5.27 The Appellant further notes that no statutory consultee objected to the proposal. Neither Historic Environment Scotland, Roads, Environmental Health nor NatureScot raised objections which would indicate that the proposal would result in unacceptable impacts requiring refusal. The absence of technical objection is significant. It demonstrates that the refusal ultimately rests upon the Planning Authority's planning judgement regarding visual impact rather than any identified technical, environmental or operational deficiency.
Page 35
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 35 5.28 The Appellant respectfully submits that the Planning Authority has therefore afforded disproportionate weight to the perceived visual effects of the proposal whilst giving insufficient weight to the operational evidence submitted in support of the application and the wider policy support for improved digital infrastructure contained within NPF4. When viewed in its proper planning context, the proposal represents a carefully considered replacement telecommunications installation required to maintain an established communications network. It has been designed to minimise environmental effects as far as reasonably practicable whilst meeting the operational requirements of the network. The Appellant therefore considers that the proposal accords with the objectives of NPF4 Policy 24 and that the Planning Authority has erred in concluding that the limited visual impacts identified justify withholding planning permission. The approach adopted by the Planning Authority is also inconsistent with the approach taken by Reporters in a number of Scottish telecommunications Local Reviews, where it has consistently been recognised that telecommunications infrastructure will inevitably be visible within the landscape and that visibility alone does not justify refusal. Scottish Local Review decisions have repeatedly confirmed that modern electronic communications infrastructure is an essential component of national infrastructure and that proposals should be assessed through an appropriate balancing exercise, weighing any identified landscape or visual impacts against the significant public benefits arising from maintaining and improving digital connectivity. In particular consistently recognised that telecommunications infrastructure, by its very nature, must project above surrounding buildings and vegetation in order to function effectively. Consequently, complete screening is rarely achievable and should not be regarded as the benchmark against which proposals are assessed. Instead, the relevant consideration is whether environmental impacts have been minimised as far as reasonably practicable whilst enabling the operational objectives of the development to be achieved. This approach closely reflects the objectives of NPF4 Policy 24, which expressly supports the expansion of digital infrastructure whilst requiring proposals to minimise environmental impacts. The policy does not require
Page 36
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 36 telecommunications infrastructure to be invisible, nor does it establish that any identifiable visual impact should automatically outweigh the acknowledged public benefits arising from enhanced digital connectivity. The Appellant respectfully submits that the Planning Authority has effectively elevated visual impact above all other material considerations. In doing so, insufficient regard has been given to the wider policy support for digital infrastructure contained within NPF4, the extensive operational justification submitted with the application, and the significant public benefits arising from maintaining resilient communications infrastructure for residents, businesses and emergency services. Accordingly, the Planning Authority has failed to undertake the balanced assessment envisaged by Policy 24, resulting in a conclusion that is neither proportionate nor consistent with the overall objectives of national planning policy. Ground 3 – Insufficient Weight Given to Operational Need and Public Benefits 5.29 The Planning Authority accepts that the proposal is required to provide replacement telecommunications infrastructure. However, whilst the operational need for the development is acknowledged, the Appellant respectfully submits that this has been afforded insufficient weight within the overall planning balance. 5.30 The Local Review proposal does not represent speculative infrastructure intended to improve an already adequate level of service. Rather, it seeks to replace an established telecommunications installation which has been lost as a consequence of redevelopment and is essential to maintaining continuity of coverage within Inveraray and the surrounding area. Without the provision of a suitable replacement site, the operator will experience a significant degradation in network coverage and capacity, adversely affecting existing customers together with the future resilience of the network. 5.31 The supporting information submitted with the application clearly demonstrates that the proposed development has been driven by operational necessity rather than convenience. The existing telecommunications installation has been decommissioned and can no longer continue to serve the area. Accordingly, a replacement site is required within a tightly constrained search area in order to replicate the
Page 37
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP
37
existing coverage footprint whilst maintaining connectivity to the wider
network.
The proposal has therefore been designed specifically to restore an
established level of service rather than introduce telecommunications
infrastructure into an area where no operational requirement exists.
The Planning Authority's assessment appears to accept that there is an
operational requirement for replacement infrastructure but concludes that
the visual impacts outweigh the benefits of the proposal. In the Appellant's
view, this conclusion gives insufficient consideration to the significant public
benefits arising from maintaining resilient electronic communications
infrastructure.
5.32 NPF4 recognises that modern digital connectivity is fundamental to
Scotland's economic growth, public safety and social wellbeing. Electronic
communications infrastructure now underpins a wide range of essential
services, including business operations, education, healthcare, tourism,
emergency response and everyday communication. The continued
expansion and resilience of mobile networks therefore represents an
important component of national infrastructure.
The proposal would facilitate the continued provision of enhanced 4G and
5G services together with supporting infrastructure for the Emergency
Services Network ("ESN"). These benefits extend significantly beyond the
commercial interests of the operator and provide clear public benefits for
residents, businesses and visitors.
The importance of resilient mobile connectivity has become increasingly
evident in recent years. Access to reliable digital infrastructure supports
economic activity, enables remote working, facilitates access to public
services and contributes to community resilience, particularly within rural
and semi-rural communities such as Inveraray.
These public benefits attract substantial weight within the planning balance.
The Planning Authority also appears to have afforded limited weight to the
technical evidence submitted in support of the application.
5.33 The accompanying technical information explains that the proposed 25-
metre height represents the minimum height necessary to achieve thePage 38
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 38 required operational coverage whilst maintaining the essential microwave transmission path to the wider network. This height has not been selected arbitrarily. Rather, it reflects the technical constraints associated with the surrounding topography, mature tree cover and the requirement to achieve an uninterrupted line of sight. Radiofrequency propagation is governed by physical constraints. Unlike many other forms of development, telecommunications infrastructure cannot simply be reduced in height or repositioned without compromising its operational effectiveness. The proposed installation therefore reflects the minimum engineering solution capable of delivering the required network performance. The Appellant further notes that the proposal has been carefully designed to minimise its environmental effects whilst maintaining operational functionality. The siting of the compound, the selection of a slimline monopole and the positioning of the installation within the identified search area all demonstrate a conscious effort to reduce visual impacts wherever reasonably practicable. NPF4 Policy 24 requires that environmental impacts are minimised. It does not require the elimination of all visual effects, nor does it require operators to compromise the operational functionality of the network in order to achieve complete visual integration. The proposal therefore satisfies the fundamental objectives of the policy. 5.34 It is also relevant that no statutory consultee objected to the proposal on technical or operational grounds. Historic Environment Scotland, NatureScot, Environmental Health and Roads all raised no objection to the development. Consequently, the refusal rests solely upon the Planning Authority's planning judgement regarding landscape and visual impacts rather than any identified technical deficiency or unacceptable environmental effect identified by specialist consultees. This absence of technical objection further reinforces the conclusion that the proposal has been appropriately designed and that the principal issue before the Local Review Body is one of planning balance rather than technical acceptability.
Page 39
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 39 The Appellant respectfully submits that the Planning Authority has failed to attach appropriate weight to the substantial public benefits arising from the proposal. Without a replacement installation, existing network coverage within Inveraray will be significantly diminished, affecting residents, businesses, visitors and emergency service users alike. The proposal therefore delivers clear social, economic and public safety benefits which extend well beyond the interests of the operator. When these benefits are properly weighed alongside the limited and localised visual impacts identified by the Planning Authority, it is respectfully submitted that the balance falls firmly in favour of granting planning permission. The proposal represents essential infrastructure required to maintain an established communications network and accords with the overarching objectives of NPF4 to support the continued expansion and resilience of Scotland's digital infrastructure. Ground 4 – The Proposed Site Represents the Only Suitable, Available and Deliverable Location 5.35 The Planning Authority concludes that the proposed development would adversely affect the character of the area and conflict with the aspirations for future development. In reaching this conclusion, however, insufficient weight has been afforded to the comprehensive alternative site assessment submitted in support of the application and the considerable operational, technical and legal constraints that influence the siting of telecommunications infrastructure. The Appellant respectfully submits that the Local Review site was not selected as a matter of convenience but represents the culmination of an extensive site selection exercise undertaken in accordance with both national planning policy and established telecommunications industry practice. NPF4 Policy 24 and LDP2 Policy 44 require applicants to demonstrate that the siting of telecommunications infrastructure has been carefully considered and that environmental impacts have been minimised wherever reasonably practicable. Neither policy requires an applicant to demonstrate that every conceivable site has been exhausted, nor do they require the
Page 40
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 40 selection of a site that is technically incapable of delivering the operational requirements of the network. Rather, the policy objective is to ensure that proposals achieve an appropriate balance between operational functionality and environmental considerations. The Appellant considers that this balance has been achieved in the present case. 5.36 The application was accompanied by a detailed Alternative Site Assessment which examined the availability and suitability of potential sites within the required search area. Each potential location was assessed against operational requirements, engineering constraints, planning considerations, land availability and deliverability. The assessment demonstrates that the operator has undertaken a comprehensive and robust search for suitable alternatives before selecting the Local Review site. This evidence has not been disputed by the Planning Authority. 5.37 A key consideration throughout the site selection exercise has been the requirement to replicate the coverage currently provided within Inveraray whilst maintaining connectivity to the wider telecommunications network. Unlike many other forms of development, telecommunications infrastructure cannot simply be relocated to any available parcel of land. The location of a base station is dictated by radio propagation modelling, surrounding topography, existing building form, mature vegetation, network integration and microwave transmission requirements. Consequently, the search area available to the operator is inherently constrained. The proposed installation must not only provide effective mobile coverage to the target area but must also maintain the necessary line of sight to the wider network infrastructure. Failure to achieve either objective would prevent the installation from functioning as intended.
Page 41
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 41 The proposed 25-metre monopole has been designed to achieve these operational requirements whilst minimising environmental effects as far as reasonably practicable. The submitted technical evidence demonstrates that the proposed height represents the minimum engineering solution capable of overcoming the surrounding mature tree canopy and local topography whilst maintaining the essential microwave link. The Planning Authority has not produced any technical evidence to dispute these conclusions. Nor has it identified an alternative location capable of providing equivalent operational performance whilst resulting in a materially lower environmental impact. Particular consideration has been given throughout the determination process to the former Roads Depot site. The Appellant fully acknowledges that planning permission was previously granted for telecommunications infrastructure at this location under planning application reference 21/02463/PP. However, the existence of an extant planning permission does not, in itself, demonstrate that a site remains available or deliverable. As explained during the determination of the application, the operator is unable to implement that permission owing to legal constraints affecting the site. Accordingly, despite the historic planning approval, the Roads Depot cannot reasonably be regarded as a deliverable alternative. The Appellant expressly advised the Planning Authority of these circumstances during the application process. No evidence has been produced to demonstrate that these legal constraints have been resolved or that the operator is capable of implementing the previously approved scheme.
Page 42
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 42 In planning terms, an unavailable site cannot properly be regarded as a reasonable alternative. Deliverability is a fundamental component of site selection. National planning policy seeks the delivery of functioning telecommunications infrastructure rather than theoretical alternatives which cannot be implemented in practice. The Planning Authority's assessment appears to afford limited weight to this distinction. 5.38 The Appellant respectfully submits that the Local Review Body should attach significant weight to the fact that the Local Review site is presently available for development whereas the previously approved Roads Depot site is not. The Planning Authority has also afforded insufficient weight to the practical limitations associated with telecommunications network design. Electronic communications infrastructure must operate as an integrated network rather than as isolated individual sites. Consequently, a replacement installation must occupy a location capable of maintaining continuity of coverage whilst integrating with the existing network architecture. The proposed site satisfies these requirements. Alternative locations examined during the site selection exercise failed to do so for reasons including inadequate coverage, excessive tree obstruction, engineering limitations, insufficient available land, landownership constraints or the inability to secure the necessary line of sight. These are not matters of preference but fundamental operational constraints which directly affect the functionality of the network. It is also important to recognise that the proposed development has been carefully designed to minimise its environmental effects.
Page 43
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 43 The chosen location utilises an area adjacent to existing development rather than extending further into the surrounding landscape. The proposed monopole represents the minimum height capable of delivering the required operational performance, and the associated equipment compound has been reduced to the minimum footprint necessary to accommodate the required apparatus. The Appellant has therefore sought to minimise environmental impacts at every stage of the design process. 5.39 In considering the proposal, the Planning Authority has not identified any alternative site which is simultaneously: • operationally capable of providing the required network coverage; • technically capable of maintaining the necessary microwave transmission path; • available to the operator; • legally deliverable; and • demonstrably less harmful in planning terms. Instead, the refusal effectively proceeds on the basis that another site may exist without identifying one capable of satisfying all of these requirements. The Appellant respectfully submits that such an approach is inconsistent with the evidence before the Planning Authority. Having regard to the extensive alternative site assessment, the operational constraints governing telecommunications development and the legal limitations affecting previously considered sites, the Appellant considers that the Local Review proposal represents the only suitable, available and deliverable solution capable of maintaining the existing telecommunications network within Inveraray. 5.40 Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the proposal satisfies the requirements of NPF4 Policy 24 and LDP2 Policy 44, having demonstrated that the siting of the development has been carefully considered, environmental impacts have been minimised as far as reasonably practicable, and no preferable deliverable alternative exists. The Local Review Body is therefore respectfully invited to conclude that the Planning Authority has afforded insufficient weight to the comprehensive
Page 44
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP
44
site selection evidence submitted with the application and that this ground
of Local Review should be upheld.
Ground 5 – The Planning Balance Weighs Decisively in Favour of Granting
Planning Permission
5.41 The Planning Authority's assessment focuses predominantly upon the
perceived landscape and visual impacts of the proposal and concludes that
these impacts outweigh the benefits arising from the development. The
Appellant respectfully submits that this conclusion is based upon an
incomplete planning balance and does not properly reflect either the
objectives of National Planning Framework 4 ("NPF4") or the evidence
submitted in support of the application.
Whilst it is accepted that the proposal will introduce a new
telecommunications installation into the landscape, this is an inevitable
characteristic of electronic communications infrastructure. The relevant
planning question is not whether the proposal will be visible, but whether it
has been appropriately sited and designed to minimise environmental
impacts whilst delivering the substantial public benefits associated with
modern digital infrastructure. It is respectfully submitted that the proposal
satisfies these requirements.
NPF4 recognises that digital communications infrastructure forms an
essential component of Scotland's national infrastructure and is
fundamental to supporting sustainable economic growth, social inclusion
and public safety. Policy 24 is therefore a positive and enabling policy which
seeks to facilitate the expansion of digital infrastructure, provided proposals
have appropriately considered their environmental impacts.
5.42 The Appellant considers that the Planning Authority has placed
disproportionate emphasis upon the environmental effects of the proposal
without giving corresponding weight to the policy support for maintaining
and improving telecommunications infrastructure. In doing so, the Planning
Authority has not undertaken the balanced assessment envisaged by NPF4.
The proposal has been carefully designed to minimise its visual impact as
far as reasonably practicable. The submitted technical evidence
demonstrates that the proposed 25-metre monopole represents the
minimum height capable of achieving the operational objectives of thePage 45
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 45 development, including maintaining the required line of sight and overcoming surrounding topographical and vegetative constraints. Similarly, the siting of the installation follows a comprehensive assessment of alternative sites, taking account of operational requirements, planning considerations, engineering constraints, land availability and deliverability. The Appellant has demonstrated that alternative locations were either technically incapable of delivering the required network performance, unavailable for development or subject to legal constraints preventing implementation. Accordingly, the proposal represents the least environmentally harmful solution capable of meeting the operational requirements of the network. 5.43 The Planning Authority has not disputed the operational need for replacement telecommunications infrastructure, nor has it identified any technically suitable and deliverable alternative capable of providing the required level of service. Rather, the refusal is based solely upon the exercise of planning judgement in relation to landscape and visual impacts. The Appellant respectfully submits that this judgement fails to adequately recognise the substantial public benefits arising from the proposal. The development is required to maintain established network coverage within Inveraray following the loss of the existing telecommunications installation. Without the proposed replacement infrastructure, network resilience, coverage and capacity will be adversely affected, resulting in reduced connectivity for residents, businesses, visitors and emergency service users. These are significant material considerations which attract considerable weight within the planning balance. The Planning Authority's assessment must also be viewed in the context of the exceptional delay experienced during the determination of the application. 5.44 As set out under Ground 1, the planning context materially changed during the prolonged determination period through the approval of adjacent residential development. The Appellant expressly raised concerns
Page 46
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 46 regarding this issue before the application was determined and highlighted that continued delay would fundamentally alter the planning balance. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the Local Review Body should attach appropriate weight to the procedural history of the application when considering the overall planning balance. The Appellant should not be materially disadvantaged by planning circumstances that arose solely because of the Planning Authority's prolonged delay in reaching a decision. The Appellant further submits that the Planning Authority has failed to demonstrate that the perceived landscape and visual impacts are of such magnitude that they justify refusing development which is otherwise supported by national policy and delivers clear public benefits. 5.45 Whilst the proposed mast will inevitably be visible within the surrounding area, telecommunications infrastructure is, by its very nature, required to project above surrounding development and vegetation in order to function effectively. Visibility alone does not equate to unacceptable planning harm. The proposal has been designed to minimise environmental impacts wherever reasonably practicable whilst maintaining operational functionality, thereby achieving an appropriate balance between technical requirements and environmental considerations. The Appellant respectfully submits that, when all material considerations are assessed collectively, the balance falls firmly in favour of granting planning permission. In particular, significant weight should be afforded to: • the acknowledged operational need for replacement telecommunications infrastructure; • the substantial public benefits associated with maintaining resilient mobile communications and supporting enhanced digital connectivity; • the comprehensive alternative site assessment demonstrating that no preferable deliverable location exists; • the absence of technical objections from statutory consultees; • the measures incorporated into the design to minimise environmental impacts; and • the material prejudice arising from the Planning Authority's prolonged delay in determining the application.
Page 47
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 47 Collectively, these considerations significantly outweigh the limited and localised landscape and visual impacts identified by the Planning Authority. 5.46 For the reasons set out throughout this Local Review Statement, the Appellant respectfully submits that the proposed development accords with the objectives of NPF4 Policies 7, 14 and, in particular, Policy 24, together with the relevant provisions of LDP2 when read as a whole. The proposal represents essential digital infrastructure that has been carefully designed and appropriately sited to minimise environmental impacts whilst meeting an identified operational need. The Planning Authority has afforded disproportionate weight to the perceived visual effects of the proposal and insufficient weight to the significant public benefits arising from maintaining and enhancing telecommunications infrastructure. When the planning balance is undertaken correctly, having regard to all material considerations, it is respectfully submitted that the proposal is acceptable in planning terms. Accordingly, the Local Review Body is respectfully requested to allow this Local Review and grant planning permission for the proposed development.
Page 48
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 48 6.0 Conclusion 6.1 The determination of telecommunications proposals requires a balanced assessment of both the environmental impacts of the proposed development and the significant public benefits arising from the provision of modern electronic communications infrastructure. National Planning Framework 4 recognises the importance of resilient digital infrastructure in supporting economic growth, public safety, businesses, residents and visitors, whilst also requiring proposals to minimise environmental impacts wherever reasonably practicable. It is therefore essential that all material considerations are afforded appropriate weight when reaching a planning decision.. 6.2 The Appellant respectfully submits that, in this instance, the Planning Authority has failed to undertake the balanced assessment required by NPF4. Whilst the Officer has identified concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposal and its relationship with the surrounding historic environment, insufficient weight has been afforded to the operational and technical requirements of the development, the comprehensive assessment of alternative sites, and the substantial public benefits associated with maintaining and enhancing the electronic communications network. 6.3 The Appellant has demonstrated throughout the application process that the proposed development represents the minimum engineering solution capable of maintaining network coverage within the target area. The proposed height has been dictated by operational necessity and the requirement to achieve a clear line of sight above surrounding topography and vegetation. Furthermore, an extensive assessment of alternative sites confirmed that no other suitable, available and deliverable location exists which would meet the operational requirements of the network whilst resulting in a materially lower environmental impact. 6.4 The Appellant also respectfully submits that considerable weight should be attached to the procedural history of the application. The Planning Authority took almost ten months to determine the application, during which time the
Page 49
Cell No. 93845 LPA Ref: 25/01573/PP 49 planning context materially changed following the approval of adjacent residential development. The Appellant expressly raised concerns during the determination process that continued delay would prejudice the application by altering the planning balance. It is therefore submitted that the proposal has ultimately been assessed against planning circumstances that did not exist when the application was submitted and which arose solely as a consequence of the Planning Authority's prolonged determination period. 6.5 Whilst the proposed telecommunications installation will inevitably be visible within the surrounding area, this is an inherent characteristic of electronic communications infrastructure and should not, in itself, justify refusal. The proposal has been carefully sited and designed to minimise its visual impact as far as reasonably practicable whilst fulfilling the operational requirements of the network. No statutory consultee objected to the proposal, and the refusal rests solely upon the Planning Authority's planning judgement regarding landscape, visual and heritage impacts. 6.6 When all material considerations are assessed collectively, the Appellant respectfully submits that the planning balance weighs firmly in favour of granting planning permission. The proposal would secure the continuation of an established telecommunications network, improve digital connectivity, support residents, businesses and visitors, facilitate the ongoing rollout of enhanced mobile services and deliver wider public benefits that are recognised and supported by national planning policy. These significant benefits outweigh the limited and localised visual impacts identified by the Planning Authority. For the reasons set out throughout this Local Review Statement, the Appellant respectfully requests that the Local Review Body allows this Local Review, overturns the decision of Argyll and Bute Council and grants planning permission for the proposed telecommunications installation.