A Tettenhall mast appeal has been dismissed after a Planning Inspector found that a proposed 20-metre telecommunications pole would harm the character of a Wolverhampton conservation area and could damage mature trees. The operator’s assessment of alternative locations was also found wanting.
Inspector Andrew Fulford issued the decision on 29th October 2026 in appeal 6013350, concerning a grass verge on Wergs Road at Tettenhall Wood. Jet Infrastructure Ltd had challenged Wolverhampton City Council’s refusal of prior approval under Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO).
I think the Tettenhall mast appeal matters beyond this particular location because the Inspector accepted the substantial public benefits of improved fourth-generation mobile (4G) coverage and standalone fifth-generation mobile (5G) connectivity. Those benefits did not resolve the scheme’s heritage, arboricultural and siting problems, particularly when the evidence failed to explain why less harmful locations could not be used.
Why the Tettenhall mast appeal failed
The proposed installation was a 20-metre Orion monopole carrying six antennas, three electronic radio system units and two 300mm dishes, together with equipment cabinets and associated works. It would stand on a highway verge beside Upper Green, within the Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area.
The surrounding streets include mature trees, hedgerows, open green spaces and substantial nineteenth-century properties. The Inspector said the area’s parkland appearance and semi-rural quality contribute to the conservation area’s significance. Nearby streetlights provide some vertical structures, but none would compare with the proposed monopole’s height and presence.
In the Tettenhall mast appeal, the principal planning questions were the siting and appearance of the apparatus, its effect on trees, and whether the expected network benefits justified any harm. The principle of telecommunications development was already established through the GPDO, so the assessment was not an ordinary fresh application to decide whether digital infrastructure should exist.
Part 16 prior approval has a defined scope
Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the GPDO allows qualifying communications apparatus subject to the relevant limitations and prior approval procedures. The Inspector emphasised that the decision under paragraph A.3(4) concerned siting and appearance, taking representations into account. Development-plan policies could inform that assessment where relevant, but were not an independent test of the principle.
Planning Geek’s Class A electronic communications guidance explains that distinction. It is central to understanding the Tettenhall mast appeal: the failure was not a general rejection of 5G networks or a finding that all tall structures are unacceptable. It was an assessment of the physical effects and justification for one installation at one particular place.
The Council had refused application 26/00385/TEL on 4th June 2026. Contemporaneous local reporting recorded concerns about a conspicuous pole beside the green. The October appeal decision considered the full case afresh, taking account of the revised national planning policy published in August.
Conservation area harm was significant
The Inspector found that the mast would be markedly higher and bulkier than the surrounding lighting columns. Although trees would soften some views in summer, the apparatus would remain prominent above the canopy, particularly after the leaves fell. Associated cabinets would also introduce a noticeable utilitarian element to the grass verge.
Photomontages indicated that a grey finish was the least visually intrusive option, but they did not persuade the Inspector that the proposal could assimilate into the conservation area. He concluded that the mast would contrast with the softer landscape setting and harm views from surrounding roads, footways and the open green.
The Tettenhall mast appeal was assessed against the statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The Inspector found moderate harm to the conservation area’s character and appearance. He gave that harm considerable importance, rather than assuming that a moderate degree of harm could be overridden by an unquantified operational preference.
Tree-root evidence left unanswered questions
The proposed siting was between mature sycamore and chestnut trees, approximately 12 and 18 metres tall. The applicant’s arboricultural assessment identified an incursion of around 11 square metres into the sycamore’s 241-square-metre root protection area. The Council’s tree officer did not object simply because of that numerical incursion.
The difficulty was how the equipment would be built and connected. A strip foundation could have more damaging effects than a less intrusive construction method, while the route and burial depth of the electrical supply had not been established. Those additional works might disturb roots beyond the mast’s immediate footprint.
The Inspector therefore concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that the selected position would protect the health and longevity of the nearby tree. In the Tettenhall mast appeal, the risk attached to unexamined construction and power-connection details as well as to the visible pole itself.
Why reviewing 21 alternative locations was not enough
Jet Infrastructure had assessed and discounted 21 other sites in its network search area. The Inspector accepted that some were logically ruled out because of listed buildings or nearby homes. But others were rejected on visual grounds even though the appeal location suffered similar problems, and some alternatives were outside the conservation area.
He was particularly concerned that sites with a history of telecommunications equipment or approvals had not been adequately examined. One excluded location associated with Severn Trent Water was said to be generally unavailable, but the available evidence did not show that the matter had been explored with the landowner.
The Inspector described the unexplained omission of locations with earlier telecoms approvals as “a serious flaw in the site assessment process”. I think that observation is important because a long schedule of rejected alternatives is not automatically persuasive if it does not apply consistent criteria or investigate promising candidates.
The Tettenhall mast appeal therefore offers a useful procedural lesson. Where an operator accepts that its chosen site has heritage or landscape drawbacks, the alternatives analysis should provide compelling evidence that other feasible locations would be worse or unsuitable. Simply supplying a large number of dismissed options is not sufficient.
The public benefit of 5G was still acknowledged
The Inspector placed substantial weight on improvements to 4G coverage and the introduction of standalone 5G capability. He accepted evidence of poor network performance in the locality and the national policy support for communications infrastructure. The disagreement was not over the usefulness of better digital coverage.
However, those benefits did not outweigh the moderate harm to the conservation area’s significance, the possible effect on mature trees and the unconvincing site-choice evidence. The Inspector also considered the revised August 2026 Framework, including its support for infrastructure and its requirements concerning heritage assets and natural features.
I would not treat the decision as a prohibition on telecommunications infrastructure anywhere in Tettenhall or within conservation areas. A different siting, equipment arrangement or sufficiently evidenced alternatives exercise would need its own assessment. Nor should the outcome be confused with another Wolverhampton mast proposal reported separately in September.
The appeal reference and sources
Inspector Andrew Fulford dismissed appeal 6013350 on 29th October 2026 following a site visit on 23rd October. The local planning authority was Wolverhampton City Council and the application reference was 26/00385/TEL. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments