Telecoms mast appeal fails after operator cannot rule out car park alternative

A Coventry telecoms mast alternative site dispute has ended with a dismissed appeal after an Inspector found that the operator had not convincingly ruled out a potentially less harmful car park location.

Appeal 6010199 concerned a 20-metre monopole with nine antennas, two dishes, a wraparound base cabinet and six ground-level equipment cabinets on a grass verge at Ferrers Close. The proposal was made under Part 16 Class A of the GPDO.

Inspector G Sibley accepted the importance of maintaining mobile coverage and capacity, but found unacceptable visual harm from the telecoms mast and equipment. The weakness in the alternatives exercise then became decisive because one car park option had been rejected without sufficiently persuasive evidence.

The telecoms mast would dominate an open residential verge

The appeal site formed part of an area of grassed open space close to Ferrers Close and Faseman Avenue. Trees and the open verge contributed positively to the suburban character, while the immediate area did not contain a concentration of tall structures or substantial street furniture.

The Inspector found that the approximately 20-metre monopole would rise well above nearby telegraph poles and much of the surrounding tree cover. The trees would filter some views, but they would not assimilate the telecoms mast into the street scene.

The six equipment cabinets also mattered. Their number, bulk and utilitarian appearance would introduce a more urbanising character at ground level. Taken together with the monopole, the installation would be visually assertive in a location where the existing green space had a softer appearance.

Revised plans showed the monopole in black and the cabinets in green. Sibley accepted that this reduced visual contrast, but not enough to overcome the effects of height, prominence and cumulative equipment.

Part 16 limited the appeal to siting and appearance

The Inspector emphasised that this was a telecoms mast prior approval appeal under Part 16. The principle of telecommunications development was established by the GPDO, and the decision was confined to siting and appearance.

Development plan policies and the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework were therefore relevant only insofar as they informed those matters. The wider public need for communications infrastructure did not turn the appeal into an ordinary planning balance.

This is important for both operators and objectors. Part 16 does not reopen the principle of development, but it does require a properly evidenced siting case where a particular location causes visual harm.

Planning Geek’s 5G mast planning guide explains the prior approval framework.

Why the telecoms mast alternative site evidence mattered

MBNL, acting for EE UK Ltd and H3G UK Ltd, had assessed 22 alternative sites. Most were discounted for reasons including structural capacity, height, coverage, operational requirements or other constraints.

Two options were specifically debated. A Faseman Avenue and Langley Croft site was rejected because it would be more open, less screened and closer to homes. The Inspector considered that reasoning sufficient.

The other option, identified as D20, was a car park off Jardine Crescent. The appellant said that installing the equipment there would remove at least five parking spaces and affect the operation of the car park.

That explanation was not enough. Sibley did not say the car park site was acceptable, or that the operator had to build there. The problem was evidential: there was limited substantive material explaining how the loss of spaces would affect the car park, or why that effect made the alternative unavailable, unviable or clearly less suitable.

As Inspector Sibley put it: “I am not satisfied that it has been discounted on a clear and persuasive basis.”

Because the appeal site itself caused harm, the operator needed clear and persuasive evidence showing why potentially less harmful locations had been ruled out. The deficiency in the D20 assessment weakened the justification for the chosen verge.

Network benefits still carried substantial policy support

The Inspector recognised the policy support for high-quality communications networks. He also acknowledged the appellant’s evidence that the installation would help maintain or improve coverage and capacity.

Policy CO1 in the revised Framework gives substantial weight to maintaining or improving network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience. In a prior approval appeal, however, that support informs the need for the particular installation and the assessment of realistic siting alternatives.

It did not mean that any site within the search area had to be accepted. Once unacceptable siting and appearance harm had been identified, the operator still needed to show why a less harmful realistic option was not available.

Planning Geek analysis

For me, this telecoms mast alternative site decision shows why the quality of the evidence matters more than the length of a site-search table. The Inspector found visual harm at Ferrers Close and then examined whether the need for this particular siting outweighed that harm.

He did not approve D20 or establish that it was preferable. Instead, the unresolved evidence about that potentially less harmful option weakened the operator’s justification for choosing the verge.

For telecoms mast operators, the lesson is to treat the discounted-sites table as substantive planning evidence rather than a procedural appendix. If a site is rejected because of parking loss, land ownership, engineering constraints or operational effects, the appeal evidence should explain the point clearly enough for an Inspector to understand why it is a real barrier.

For councils, the decision also shows the limits of an alternatives argument. A local planning authority cannot simply identify another patch of land and insist it should be used. The alternatives evidence becomes relevant where the chosen site causes harm, and the focus is whether reasonable options have been convincingly addressed.

We would also separate a genuine constraint from an assumption. A telecoms mast alternative site assessment should show how the proposed equipment fits, what would be displaced and why that matters. Simply stating a parking-space figure left the Inspector without enough evidence about the operational consequences here.

The Council had not demonstrated that D15 or D20 was suitable or preferable. That did not rescue the appeal, because the operator’s own evidence still needed to explain convincingly why potentially less harmful options had been rejected.

Read the appeal decision

Appeal 6010199 was dismissed on 2nd October 2026 by Inspector G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI.

You can read the full Coventry telecoms mast appeal decision or view the Planning Inspectorate appeal record.