A telecom mast appeal has been allowed in Birmingham despite an Inspector accepting that a proposed 20-metre pole would cause moderate visual harm at a busy road junction. The need to maintain mobile phone coverage and the absence of a suitable alternative site tipped the balance.
Inspector Richard Snow issued the decision on 11 November 2026, granting prior approval for the installation on a central refuge at the junction of Streetly Road and Short Heath Road in Upper Witton. The proposed equipment comprises a monopole supporting six antennas, a wraparound base cabinet and three further cabinets.
What stands out to me in this telecom mast appeal is the weight given to a focused, credible alternatives study. It shows both the limits of a Part 16 prior approval assessment and why a finding of visual harm does not automatically defeat equipment needed to replace existing network coverage.
Why the telecom mast appeal was allowed
BTEE appealed against Birmingham City Council’s refusal of application 2026/01984/PA. The appeal was brought under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against refusal of the prior approval sought under Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO), as amended.
The Inspector identified two connected questions. First, how the siting and appearance of the equipment would affect the character and appearance of the area. Secondly, if visual harm arose, whether network requirements and the availability of other sites justified accepting that harm. This was not an unrestricted reassessment of every possible planning issue.
The telecom mast appeal resulted in prior approval, rather than a separate full planning permission for an entirely new development concept. That distinction matters because the permitted development legislation prescribes the matters which the council and Inspector are entitled to consider.
A prominent pole in an ordinary urban junction
The selected location is within the grassy central refuge separating the two directions of Streetly Road, near a signal-controlled crossing. Retail and service premises characterise the junction to the south, while the area to the north is mainly residential. Existing traffic lights, highway lighting, poles and other roadside features already contribute to the scene.
The Inspector acknowledged that the proposed pole would rise above nearby buildings, lighting columns and trees. Trees on the central refuge would provide some screening from longer views, particularly in leaf, but would not remove its immediate prominence. Cabinets at ground level would also make the installation more noticeable.
The Inspector’s conclusion was that the proposal would cause moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area
. The Inspector regarded it as conflicting with the relevant Birmingham design policies and local telecommunications guidance, to the extent they were material to siting and appearance. The finding of harm was explicit, not dismissed as negligible.
The council also raised a possible cumulative effect with another local telecommunications installation. The precise position of that equipment was not sufficiently established, however, and the Inspector did not identify a comparable structure within the same field of view. The Inspector was therefore not persuaded that the additional cumulative visual impact had been demonstrated.
Why the 31 alternative locations mattered
The operator’s case centred on replacing network coverage which would otherwise be lost when an existing installation on Chipstead Road was decommissioned because of redevelopment. Technical material identified a defined search area in which a suitable replacement was needed to preserve service.
A total of 31 potential locations had been considered. These included existing communications sites, rooftops, open spaces and highway sites. Individual options were discounted for reasons including topography, insufficient space, structural limitations, utility conflicts, excessive distance from the required location and sensitivity identified in the council’s guidance.
The Inspector considered the technical evidence alongside observations from the site visit and found no convincing material showing that a more suitable or technically feasible alternative had been missed. The absence of a preferable alternative weighed significantly in favour of the proposed pole, particularly when the national policy support for network reliability was taken into account.
For me, that is the practical reason why the telecom mast appeal succeeded: the alternatives exercise was more than an unsupported claim that the chosen location was convenient. It connected the replacement requirement, local search area and reasons for rejecting other sites. Other applications need their own credible evidence rather than simply citing this result.
What Part 16 permits an Inspector to consider
Schedule 2, Part 16 of the 2015 Order provides permitted development rights for qualifying electronic communications infrastructure, subject to relevant limitations and conditions. The decision concerned a prior approval application under Class A, paragraph A.3(4), which directed the assessment to siting and appearance with representations taken into account.
The Inspector expressly noted that Part 16 did not require regard to be had to the development plan. Policies in the development plan, local guidance and the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework were considered only so far as they were relevant to the permitted prior approval issues.
Planning Geek’s Class A electronic communications guidance explains the relevant permitted development framework. The detailed limits and procedures still need to be checked against the legislation applying to the installation, since not every structure or operation falls within the same right.
The telecom mast appeal therefore should not be read as saying that every replacement mast is acceptable despite visual harm. It demonstrates the focused statutory test and the planning balance within that test. A council may identify real visual impacts, but those impacts must be assessed alongside the evidence for network need and siting alternatives.
Health representations, highways and conditions
Some representations raised concern about health effects, proximity to homes and nurseries, and potential disruption at a major junction. The operator provided a certificate confirming that the proposal had been designed to comply with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines. The Inspector found no sufficiently authoritative evidence calling that compliance into question.
The Inspector also found no substantive evidence of unacceptable highway effects or disruption and noted that the highway authority had not objected. Those findings do not remove the need for highway or health considerations in appropriate cases; they describe the evidence and statutory policy framework in this particular appeal.
The Inspector said that the GPDO did not provide authority to add bespoke conditions beyond the deemed conditions applying to these works. Those include construction in accordance with submitted details, commencement within five years and removal and restoration when the equipment is no longer needed. It would therefore be wrong to suggest that a new package of additional planning conditions secured the approval.
What operators and councils can take away
The outcome gives an important lesson in proportionality. Applicants should identify the precise permitted development right and provide a technically credible alternatives assessment that addresses coverage requirements, physical constraints and local environmental sensitivities. It is particularly important where an existing installation is being removed for redevelopment.
For councils, I would treat the telecom mast appeal as a reminder that a refusal based on the appearance of a tall structure needs to engage with the actual service requirement and alternative locations. The Inspector can acknowledge moderate design harm and nevertheless conclude that substantial connectivity benefits outweigh it. Equally, an inadequate alternatives study could produce a different decision.
The appeal was allowed on 11 November 2026 under reference 6014913. The local application was 2026/01984/PA. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments