- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: G Sibley
- Authority
- Coventry (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6010199
- Application reference
- PL/2025/0001852/PAEC
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Prior approval (GPDO Part 16 Class A) for a 20 m monopole with 9 antennas and 2 dishes, a wraparound cabinet and 6 ground-based equipment cabinets
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- CO1(1)(a)
- Development plan policies
- Coventry Local Plan 2017 C2, DE1, GE2
- Main issues
- siting and appearance; alternative sites
Summary
Prior approval for a 20 m monopole and six cabinets on a grassed verge in a Coventry housing area, refused by the Council against its officers' recommendation. The inspector found the mast prominent and urbanising, and held that one alternative site, a car park, had not been discounted on clear and persuasive evidence. CO1's substantial weight to network benefits informed the need for the siting but did not outweigh the harm. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework for this appeal" (DL ¶4).
- Siting and appearance: HARM. "the equipment would appear as a visually assertive and urbanising addition that would contrast with the softer and more informal qualities of this part of the street scene" (DL ¶10).
- Officer recommendation. "I have also had regard to the appellant’s point that officers recommended approval of the proposal. However, the Council reached a different decision" (DL ¶12).
- Alternatives, CO1(1)(a): FAIL. "that does not remove the need for clear and persuasive evidence to explain why a potentially less harmful alternative has been rejected" (DL ¶16). "I do not need to determine whether the D20 car park site would itself be acceptable" (DL ¶18).
- CO1 weight in a prior approval. "The general need for electronic communications infrastructure is reflected in the permitted development right itself" (DL ¶22). "that policy support is relevant insofar as it informs the need for the installation to be sited as proposed, taking into account the availability of realistic alternatives" (DL ¶23).
What made the difference
One alternative. The appellant reviewed 22 sites, but the reason for rejecting the car park (five parking spaces lost) was not backed by evidence of the operational effect. With visual harm found, that gap was enough.
Transferable points
- In a telecoms prior approval, CO1 substantial weight goes to whether the mast needs to be where it is proposed, not to the general need, which the permitted development right already reflects (DL ¶22–23).
- The burden on alternatives is on the operator: each potentially less harmful site must be discounted on clear and persuasive evidence, and the council need not prove the alternative is suitable (DL ¶18, ¶20).
- A refusal against officers' advice on a judgement of visual harm was upheld on the inspector's own assessment (DL ¶12).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO1(1)(a) | fail | CO1 read as requiring use of existing masts and structures unless there is no reasonable opportunity; a car park site (D20) was discounted for the loss of at least five parking spaces with limited evidence; not "discounted on a clear and persuasive basis" (DL 15-21, 25) | |
| CO1 | benefit | substantial | substantial weight to network benefits acknowledged, but in a prior approval appeal it is "relevant insofar as it informs the need for the installation to be sited as proposed"; the general need is reflected in the permitted development right itself (DL 22-23) |
| DP3 | harm | mapped: Framework design policy not cited; 20 m monopole and six cabinets a prominent, incongruous and urbanising addition to grassed open space in a suburban street; conflict with local C2 and DE1 so far as relevant (DL 7-13) |
Key facts
- Officers recommended approval; the Council decided otherwise (DL 12)
- Revised plans with a black monopole and green cabinets accepted; colour reduced contrast but did not overcome the harm (DL 5, 11)
- Appellant assessed 22 alternative sites; D15 was reasonably discounted, D20 was not (DL 17-20)
- The Council did not have to show that an alternative would be suitable; the appellant's evidence must explain why a potentially less harmful option was rejected (DL 18, 20)
- Letter gives the Framework's issue date as 18 August 2026; parties given the opportunity to comment (DL 4)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.