# Kings Way verge, Burgess Hill (17.5 m monopole, prior approval) - **Decision:** allowed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Mid Sussex (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010382 - **Application reference:** DM/26/0328 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** GPDO Part 16 Class A prior approval for a 17.5 m monopole with 6 antennas, 2 dishes, 3 cabinets and ancillary works on a suburban grass verge - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** CO1(1), CO1(1)(a), CO2(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 DP23 - **Main issues:** siting and appearance, alternative sites - **Tags:** telecoms, prior-approval, co1-substantial-weight, alternative-sites, harm-outweighed ## Summary A prior approval appeal for a 17.5 m monopole on a suburban verge in Burgess Hill. The inspector found real visual harm: "dominant and incongruous", seen against the skyline. But the operator's exhaustive site search, which the council itself accepted left no realistic alternative, and the substantial weight CO1 gives to 4G/5G coverage outweighed that harm. Appeal allowed and prior approval granted. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "A new National Planning Policy Framework … was published on 17 August 2026. As this could affect the issues and matters in this case, the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments" (DL ¶3). - **Siting and appearance: harm.** "Due to its height and location, the monopole and associated equipment would be particularly dominant and incongruous in views along Kings Way and from nearby houses where the top part of the installation would be seen against the skyline" (DL ¶10). The cabinets were acceptable (DL ¶12). - **CO1 / CO2.** "Policy CO1 of the Framework states that … substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience" (DL ¶14). "Where a new site is proposed, Policy CO2 of the Framework requires evidence that the number of these is kept to a minimum" (DL ¶15). - **Alternatives: none realistic.** Twenty-two sites were assessed, and the council's two suggestions failed: the basketball court because of TPO trees and railway proximity, the field because of an extant care-home consent (DL ¶16-19). "The Council acknowledges that the appeal site represents the only realistic option within the defined search area. Based on the evidence before me, I agree" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance This was the prior approval balance: harm against need, taking alternatives into account. "The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area … Nonetheless, the proposal would have significant benefits in providing improved 4G and new 5G coverage in the area, as supported by the Framework. Along with the lack of any suitable alternative sites in the search area, this outweighs the harm" (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference The site-search evidence, and the council's concession that there was no realistic alternative. Harm alone was not enough to refuse once CO1 substantial weight was combined with an exhausted search. Contrast Dovecot, Liverpool (PINS-6009085), where rejected alternatives were not adequately justified. ## Transferable points - In prior approval appeals, CO1 substantial weight plus a demonstrably exhausted CO2(1)(b) site search can outweigh clear visual harm from a new monopole (DL ¶14-21). - A long history of refused attempts to serve the same area helps show the search was genuine (DL ¶20). - Health, energy use and interference are not determining issues in Part 16 prior approval when an ICNIRP certificate is supplied (DL ¶22-23, ¶27). ## Policy findings - **CO1(1): benefit (substantial weight).** improved 4G and new 5G for VMO2 (DL ¶14, ¶16, ¶21) - **CO1(1)(a): pass.** no mast-sharing opportunities in the search area (DL ¶16) - **CO2(1)(b): pass.** 22 sites assessed plus the 2 the council suggested; council conceded the appeal site was the only realistic option; operator had sought coverage since 2016, with 3 refusals (DL ¶16-20) - **CO1(1)(b): harm.** "particularly dominant and incongruous"; top would be seen against the skyline above 8 m trees; cabinets acceptable (DL ¶10-13) - **CO1(1)(c): pass.** ICNIRP certificate; health is not a determining issue in prior approval (DL ¶22) - **DP23 (Mid Sussex DP): conflict.** material only so far as it bears on siting and appearance (DL ¶5, ¶13) ## Key facts - 17.5 m slimline grey monopole, under the 25 m permitted development ceiling (DL ¶8) - Suburban verge; streetlights and trees about 8 m high; no heritage or landscape designations (DL ¶7) - Alternatives rejected included a TPO-ringed basketball court within 50 m of a railway (monopoles cannot be sited there) and a field with consent for a care facility (DL ¶18-19) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010382 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ba613760-6d7a-4ede-8293-30d7a5e1ea9a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010382.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.