5-metre UHF radio antenna at 13 Mill Green, Edwardstone, Sudbury

What was proposed

Permission was sought to retain an existing five-metre fibreglass UHF radio antenna on the rear gable of a semi-detached house.

“The proposal seeks planning permission for the retention of an existing 5-metre fibreglass Ultra High Frequency (UHF) radio antenna on the gable end of a semi-detached property. The antenna is positioned to the back of the end gable, towards the rear elevation beside an existing TV antenna.”

“The installation of the antenna was completed on the 9 th of September 2025 using T and K Aerial brackets, backed up by a coaxial cable line meaning the feature would hang in place and not detach from the dwelling. The structure is fully weatherproofed, and rated to 90 mile per hour windspeeds, weighing approximately 2.3 kilograms.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The house is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling within the Edwardstone settlement boundary, with rear outdoor space, front parking and open countryside behind.

“No. Mill Green is a two-storey residential dwelling within the settlement boundary of Edwardstone (Mill Green). The dwelling forms part of a semi-detached pair; a characteristic dwelling type of the locale which mostly consists of this feature alongside a single two-storey structure comprised of a number of self-contained flats. The property is on a moderate sized plot with a large outdoor amenity space to the rear, and hardstanding parking to the front.”

“The property in question is owned by Babergh District Council. It is situated outside of any designated Conservation Areas, National Landscapes, or Sites of Scientific Interest, with no Listed Buildings within the locality. There are no Tree Protection Orders or Public Rights of Way on or adjacent to the site. The proposal is within Flood Zone 1, and is not identified as being vulnerable to any forms of flooding.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

There was no relevant planning history at the address.

“There is no relevant planning history present at the address.”

Officer report

The officer recommendation

Officers recommended permission because the proposal accorded with the development plan and would not harm visual appearance, landscape or residential amenity.

“Policy LP24 of the JLP and Paragraph 135 of the NPPF seek to ensure development does not detrimentally affect the residential amenity of neighbouring residents and delivers adequate amenity to future occupiers in order to achieve and maintain well-designed places and the health and wellbeing of communities. The nature of the proposal means there is no opportunity for the scheme to promote overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of daylight, or overshadowing.”

“When viewed against this backdrop, the installation assimilates comfortably into its surroundings and avoid creating any new visual prominence. The proposal therefore accords with Policy LP17, as it maintains the character and appearance of the landscape without giving rise to adverse amenity impacts.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and council asset team made no comments, environmental health raised no objection, and enforcement had no case at the address.

“Enforcement Comments Received - 08/10/2025 The Enforcement Team does not have a case at this address.”

Officer report

Comments from the public

One objection and one neutral comment raised concerns about height, design, landscape impact, appearance, amenity, wind noise and signal interference.

“At the time of writing this report 2no. online comments have been received. It is the officer opinion that this represents 1no. objections, 1no. neutral comments and 0no. support comments. An update shall be provided as necessary either via Tabled Papers or verbally at the meeting.”

“Objection comments summarised as follows: - Design. - Development too high. - Landscape Impact. - Overbearing/dominating. - Out of character with the area. - Residential Amenity Harm through wind noise and interference with electronic signals.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke to the committee and answered questions about whether a ground-mounted antenna had been considered.

Members’ discussion

Members questioned the antenna’s use, licensing, potential noise and whether a ground-mounted option had been considered.

“The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the use of the antenna, whether the applicant had the required license in place, and the potential for noise.”

“The applicant responded to questions from Members regarding whether a ground mounted antenna had been considered.”

Minutes

The vote

A proposal to approve the application was seconded and passed unanimously.

“Councillor Beer proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the Officer recommendation. Councillor Davies seconded the proposal.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was granted with conditions covering approved plans and documents and removal of the antenna when use ceases.

“That Members GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions and informatives and any others as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer:”

“Approved plans and documents 2. Compliance required: Removal once use ceases…”

Minutes