A Green Belt telecoms appeal has succeeded in South Staffordshire, allowing a new fibre-network amplifier compound on agricultural land near Kingswood. Planning Inspector Andrew Fulford granted permission on 30 October 2026 for equipment associated with a proposed direct communications route between London and Dublin. The decision applies the new national planning policy tests for essential telecommunications infrastructure rather than the usual requirement to demonstrate very special circumstances.
The proposal, submitted by EXA Infrastructure UK Ltd, concerns land north of Newport Road beside the A41. It involves a compact operational compound containing four single-storey structures, including amplifier and expansion units, a substation enclosure and a generator enclosure. South Staffordshire District Council had refused application 26/00361/FUL, prompting appeal 6014463. The Inspector visited the site on 23 October.
The Green Belt telecoms result is significant well beyond this particular field. It explains how the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) deals with communications infrastructure that has a genuine locational requirement. It also shows why the site-selection evidence, effect on openness and conflict with Green Belt purposes remain important, even when a project can qualify as not inappropriate development.
Why the Green Belt telecoms proposal was allowed
The central question was whether the development fell within an exception to the normal restriction on new buildings in the Green Belt. The Inspector referred to NPPF policy GB7(1)(f)(i), which addresses telecommunications infrastructure that needs a Green Belt location, provided its impact on openness is minimised and there is no significant conflict with the Green Belt’s purposes. Meeting those tests avoids an assessment of very special circumstances.
The applicant’s evidence described the amplifier as part of a direct fibre route intended to improve international network capacity and resilience between London and Dublin, with links to wider communications networks. This was not a proposal for a conventional mobile-phone mast serving a single village. Its purpose, the equipment proposed and the constraints of a larger network were central to the Green Belt telecoms assessment.
Why this location was said to be necessary
The proposed route would require five new inline amplifier stations to maintain fibre-optic signal performance. The Inspector recorded engineering evidence that amplifier sites needed to be roughly 70 to 80 kilometres apart. Suitable land also had to be close to an existing BT trunk duct and an appropriate high-voltage electricity supply, with operational and maintenance access and a landowner prepared to grant a secure interest.
The appellant identified a requirement for approximately 750 square metres of land to accommodate the compound. In combination, the spacing, electricity, duct access, land availability and operational demands made it impracticable to pursue a realistic site outside the Green Belt. The Inspector accepted that the proposed equipment needed to be located in the Green Belt, although that was only the first stage of the relevant policy test.
For Green Belt telecoms, that reasoning is more useful than a bare assertion that digital infrastructure is nationally important. An appellant must connect the broader network’s engineering needs to the actual site’s constraints. The Inspector did not say telecommunications schemes automatically enjoy an exemption simply because they support connectivity or economic growth.
A modest compound still needed an openness assessment
The scheme would occupy the south-west corner of an open field next to Newport Road, using a nearby gravel track for access. It would contain an inline amplifier unit, an expansion unit, a glass-reinforced-plastic substation enclosure and a generator enclosure. All four structures were single storey, with a compact footprint and security fencing. The proposed layout was designed to reduce the overall spread of equipment across the field.
Inspector Fulford found that the impact on openness had been sufficiently minimised when assessed against the development’s operational requirements. He also considered each of the five Green Belt purposes in GB2. There would be some countryside encroachment, but he found no significant conflict with that purpose in light of the small structures and the limited area occupied.
The Green Belt telecoms decision is therefore about an acceptable combination of location and form, not about infrastructure taking priority over openness in every case. A much larger building, an unnecessarily expansive compound or less persuasive site-selection evidence could produce a different result under the same policy.
The 2026 NPPF outweighed an older local policy
A second issue was the relationship between South Staffordshire’s older Green Belt policies and the new Framework. Core Strategy policy GB1, adopted in 2012, listed categories of development treated as not inappropriate. The Inspector considered that list inconsistent with the newer national GB7 exceptions and gave it very limited weight. He attached significant weight to emerging Local Plan Review policy DS1 because it reflected the Framework’s approach.
Once he found compliance with GB7(1)(f)(i), the Inspector concluded that the development was not inappropriate in the Green Belt. In the decision he explained that there is no need for me to consider the very special circumstances case
advanced by the appellant. That is the critical distinction between a policy exception and a scheme that is inappropriate but justified by an exceptional planning balance.
Our guide to the National Planning Policy Framework explains the current national policy structure. There is also a useful distinction between this application for full permission and the separate permitted development rules for electronic communications operators, which were not the legal basis of this appeal.
Landscape, public access and local concerns
The compound would be seen from the A41 and a public footpath, Codsall 17, beside the appeal site. It would be enclosed by fencing approximately 2.4 metres high. Although communications equipment is not a familiar rural feature, the Inspector considered the impact localised because of the modest building sizes, adjacent field boundaries and existing roadside hedgerow.
The materials were proposed as red cedar timber cladding or a subdued green finish. The Inspector considered that such treatment could help the equipment fit into the rural setting, although he imposed a condition requiring detailed material approval. Existing access arrangements were also judged adequate for construction and occasional maintenance traffic, with no objection from the local highway authority.
Green Belt telecoms projects can attract understandable questions about access, noise, footpaths and wildlife. In this case the Inspector acknowledged the shared access route and temporary construction activity but found no unacceptable highway or pedestrian conflict. He also considered the low level of traffic expected once the compound was operating and the absence of homes directly adjoining the site.
What conditions were imposed?
The permission requires detailed external materials to be approved before above-ground works. Before plant or equipment is first installed, a noise impact assessment must be submitted in accordance with BS 4142, or any successor standard. Any approved mitigation must be installed before first use and retained. These requirements address potential effects from fixed equipment rather than assuming a communications compound will always be silent.
Further conditions secure the submitted ecological appraisal and drainage strategy. The Inspector recorded that statutory biodiversity net gain requirements would apply, with a minimum ten per cent gain proposed to be delivered off-site. The separate statutory biodiversity gain plan process must be satisfied before development begins unless an exemption applies; the appeal permission does not dispense with that requirement.
What the decision means for future applications
The practical lesson is that a Green Belt telecoms applicant needs a coherent technical explanation of why particular equipment must occupy a Green Belt location and why its physical footprint cannot reasonably be reduced further. The decision demonstrates an application of the 2026 policy exception, but it does not remove the ordinary demands for drainage, environmental safeguards, highways evidence and an acceptable landscape response.
For local authorities, the decision is also a reminder to check whether older Green Belt policies conflict with the new national tests before relying heavily upon them. Here the Inspector gave the 2012 exception list very limited weight, while finding the emerging plan broadly compatible with national policy. The outcome was permission for this particular facility, not a general precedent guaranteeing other infrastructure developments.
Decision and official sources
The case is appeal 6014463, decided on 30 October 2026 by Inspector Andrew Fulford following an appeal against South Staffordshire District Council’s refusal of application 26/00361/FUL. The quotation above comes from the Inspector’s published decision under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Readers can compare the decision with the government’s current Green Belt policy. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments