A Bolberry mast can be replaced with a wider but much shorter lattice tower after an Inspector allowed an appeal concerning the exposed South Devon coast. The decision grants prior approval for a 25-metre replacement at an established communications station on Bolberry Down, where the existing guyed mast is 50 metres high.
Inspector K Reeves issued the decision on 13th October 2026, overturning South Hams District Council’s refusal. The site lies within the South Devon National Landscape, the Undeveloped Coast and the Heritage Coast, so the effect on the coastal setting was central to the case.
I would separate the two questions the Inspector answered. First, did the replacement qualify for the permitted development route? Second, were its siting and appearance acceptable? Passing the first question did not remove the need to examine the landscape effects.
Why the Bolberry mast qualified for the route
The Bolberry mast application was made under Part 16, Class A of England’s permitted development order. This provides a planning route for qualifying electronic communications equipment, subject to its limitations, conditions and the relevant prior approval procedure. Here the council considered both qualification for the right and the proposal’s siting and appearance.
Its first refusal reason relied on a restriction concerning alteration or replacement of a mast. As set out in the decision, the relevant wording applies where the mast is on or within a Site of Special Scientific Interest and would exceed its original width by more than one third.
The Bolberry mast site was not on or within such a designated site, although one lies nearby. Reeves read the word “and” as requiring both parts of that restriction to apply. The decision states: “both criteria must apply”. The question of increased width could not, on its own, bring this proposal within that particular restriction.
This is a useful example of why the actual location of a designation matters. Being near a protected site is not interchangeable with being within it when the legal wording makes that distinction. It does not follow that proximity is irrelevant to every other planning or environmental question.
The application was for 25 metres, not a possible 35
The officer’s report had also raised concern about annotations showing that the proposed tower could be capable of future extension to 35 metres. The Inspector distinguished that possibility from the application actually submitted, which was for a 25-metre mast.
The Bolberry mast appeal therefore determined the 25-metre proposal shown on the plans. It did not approve a 35-metre tower simply because a drawing referred to future capability. I would check the actual approved drawings before treating any possible later alteration as part of this decision.
Prior approval was granted in accordance with application 3319/25/PAT and drawings DAC157-DD-01, DAC157-DD-03 and DAC157-GA-05. The replacement includes aerials, transmission dishes, radio equipment housing, planting and associated ancillary development.
A shorter structure balanced the wider lattice
The existing installation was important to the landscape assessment. This was a long-established communications site with a 50-metre guyed mast and related infrastructure. The comparison was between that existing installation and the submitted replacement, rather than between a new tower and an untouched coastal plateau.
The council and interested parties argued that the greater width and structural bulk would increase visual intrusion, particularly in closer and medium-distance views. Reeves accepted that the lattice form would look more substantial from some positions, but found those effects limited and offset by the halving of the mast’s height and its reduced prominence in wider views.
For the Bolberry mast, the Inspector found that siting and appearance would be acceptable in the context of the established installation. The decision also addresses the statutory duty to seek to further conservation and enhancement of the South Devon National Landscape’s natural beauty, concluding that the proposal would be consistent with that duty.
Alternative sites and designs were considered. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that another location or a single-pole design would satisfy the network’s operational requirements while producing a materially better landscape outcome. The Inspector did not assume that a different structural form would necessarily be less intrusive.
What the approval does and does not establish
Interested parties questioned the condition of the existing mast. Reeves explained that his assessment did not depend on reaching a definitive conclusion about its structural state. The appeal concerned prior approval for the replacement’s siting and appearance.
Other concerns included radio-frequency emissions, neighbouring properties, tourism, holiday letting income and consultation. The Inspector recorded certification of compliance with the relevant radiation protection guidelines, and no substantive evidence demonstrating the claimed effects on tourism, income or property values. These points did not change his conclusions on the issues before him.
The Bolberry mast decision is therefore useful for applicants considering replacement equipment in a sensitive landscape, but it remains a site-specific prior approval decision. Its outcome combines the precise wording of one limitation with a particular visual comparison. A wider tower without the same reduction in height would present a different set of facts.
The complete official decision, appeal 6009730, sets out that reasoning. Our permitted development guidance provides the wider context. For a replacement project, I would begin with the existing lawful installation, the exact replacement dimensions and the legal boundaries of any designation affecting the site.
0 Comments