# West Court Land, Park Lane, Finchampstead (telecoms lattice mast, prior approval) - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 October 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Tucker - **Authority:** Wokingham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011060 - **Application reference:** 252762 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Prior approval (GPDO Part 16 Class A) for a slimline lattice mast with 3 aerials, 2 transmission dishes, a GPS aerial and radio equipment housing, to replace apparatus about 1 km away - **Site context:** open-countryside, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** CO2(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Wokingham Borough Core Strategy CP3, CP6, CP8, CP11, Managing Development Delivery Local Plan 2014 CC03, TB21, South East Plan saved NRM6 - **Main issues:** siting and appearance, protected trees, highway safety, alternative sites - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, prior-approval, co1-substantial-weight, alternative-sites, sang, trees-tpo, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Prior approval for a telecommunications mast in a protected woodland belt beside parkland that serves as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). The inspector found a significant adverse effect from siting and appearance and no information on the protected trees. Substantial weight to network benefits under CO1 was acknowledged, but the CO2(1)(b) evidence on alternative sites was too thin. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the parties have been provided with an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶4). - **Siting and appearance: HARM.** "It would rise above the tree canopy with an engineered form that would appear out of place in a naturalistic setting" (DL ¶9). - **SANG.** "The SANG is a strategic ecological mitigation asset, and the erosion of its quality could mean that it is less able to fulfil its intended function" (DL ¶13). - **Alternatives, CO2(1)(b): FAIL.** "Policy CO2 1. b. of the Framework requires evidence that, where a new site is proposed, the applicant has sought to keep the number of new sites to a minimum and has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure" (DL ¶21). "Several other sites are discounted because of an unwilling landowner. Whilst this does present a considerable constraint, it is not one that is unsurmountable" (DL ¶23). - **CO1 weight.** "the clear and persuasive evidence regarding the unsuitability of alternative sites is not before me and I cannot therefore conclude that alternative sites have been thoroughly considered" (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference The alternatives evidence. Two nearby sites outside the Tree Preservation Order and the SANG were dismissed by the appellant for reasons the inspector could not follow, and the appellant said it was working on a different solution. With significant visual harm and no tree evidence, CO1's substantial weight was not enough. ## Transferable points - CO1 substantial weight does not carry a mast where CO2(1)(b) evidence on alternatives is brief and unexplained (DL ¶21–26). - An unwilling landowner does not by that fact rule out an alternative site (DL ¶23). - Harm to a SANG's attractiveness carries more weight than harm to ordinary open space because of its role in protecting a Special Protection Area (DL ¶13). - Effects on Tree Preservation Order woodland are part of siting and appearance and cannot be deferred to a tree works application (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **CO2(1)(b): fail.** letter says "Policy CO2 1. b."; evidence on alternative sites not sufficient to show they were thoroughly considered; an unwilling landowner is a constraint but "not one that is unsurmountable"; appellant also working towards a different solution (DL 21-24, 26) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** letter says "Policy C01"; substantial weight to maintaining or improving network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience acknowledged, but not enough without evidence on alternatives (DL 26) - **DP3: harm.** mapped: Framework design policy not cited; siting and appearance would have a significant adverse impact - engineered tower above the canopy of a woodland belt beside historic parkland that is a SANG; TPO woodland impact not assessed (DL 9-17) - **TR6: pass.** mapped: no harm to highway safety from construction or occasional maintenance visits (DL 18-20) ## Key facts - GPDO Part 16 Class A prior approval - siting and appearance only; development plan and Framework considered only as material to those matters (DL 2-3) - Described as a replacement, but the apparatus replaced is about 1 km away at Church Farm, so treated as a new installation (DL 5) - The parkland is the West Court SANG serving adjacent housing; harm to its attractiveness given more weight than for ordinary open space, "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 12-13) - Woodland Tree Preservation Order - no tree information; ground-mounted concrete blocks would compact soil and degrade the rooting environment; not to be left to a later tree works consent (DL 14-16) - Alternatives at Park Farm (outside the TPO and SANG) and across the road were not convincingly discounted (DL 22) - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011060 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/763fe271-ef83-4b60-a698-80ace2f00f48 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011060.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.