The Planning Committee B of Lewisham Council met on Thursday, 16 April 2026, to discuss a prior approval application for telecommunications infrastructure. The committee granted prior approval for the installation of a 20-metre-high monopole with associated antennas and equipment on a grass verge at Sanford Street.

Installation of Telecommunications Mast on Sanford Street

The committee considered an application for prior approval under Part 16, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) for the installation of a 20-metre-high monopole, six radio antennas, two transmission dishes, and ancillary equipment on the grass verge at Sanford Street, New Cross Gate. This development is intended to replace an existing rooftop installation at Bridge House Meadows, Juno Way, which is due to be removed due to redevelopment.

Decision: Prior approval was granted.

Arguments for Approval:

• Permitted Development Rights: The application fell under permitted development rights, meaning the principle of such development was already established by legislation. The council's assessment was limited to the siting and appearance of the installation.
• Siting: Officers were satisfied that the mast and cabinets would be located on the highway verge, not obstructing pedestrian movement or access to adjoining premises. While acknowledging some localised harm to the openness and green character of the verge, this was deemed acceptable within the highway environment.
• Appearance: The use of a monopole rather than a lattice structure, grouped cabinets, and proposed colour finishes (light grey for the monopole and dark green for the cabinets) were considered to reduce visual impact. Officers noted that while the mast would be a prominent feature, its design and relationship to existing street furniture and vegetation helped it integrate into the functional roadside environment.
• Alternatives: The applicant provided information demonstrating that alternative sites and existing structures had been explored. While the assessment was concise, officers were satisfied that sufficient evidence was presented to justify the chosen location.
• National Policy: The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports the expansion of electronic communications networks, and the applicant provided an ICNIRP certificate confirming compliance with international health guidelines.

Arguments Against Approval (raised by objectors):

• Heritage Asset: An objection was raised regarding the presence of a significant public artwork, Riders of the Apocalypse by Brian Burns, adjacent to the proposed site, which was not identified in the applicant's assessment. Objectors argued that non-designated heritage assets are material planning considerations.
• Scale and Appearance: Residents expressed concerns that the 20-metre mast would be out of scale with the surrounding two- and three-story residential properties on Sanford Walk and Stirling Gardens, causing visual intrusion and an overbearing effect.
• Site Selection: Objectors questioned the thoroughness of the site selection process, noting that three of the four discounted alternative sites were rejected for the same reason (proximity to Millwall FC's mast), suggesting a predetermined outcome.
• Consultation and Process: Concerns were raised about the adequacy of community consultation, the inaccessibility of the planning portal during the consultation period, and the applicant bypassing the council's pre-application service.
• Technical Issues: Objections included the lack of an independent technical report for site-sharing assessment and the absence of predictive coverage plots to verify the necessity of the 20-metre height.
• Cumulative Impact: The simultaneous proposal of a second identical monopole nearby raised concerns about the cumulative impact, which had not been assessed.
• Environmental and Archaeological Concerns: The site's location within an Area of Archaeological Priority and potential impact on trees were also raised.

Officer Response to Objections: Officers acknowledged the visual prominence of the mast but maintained that its siting within the highway verge and its design features mitigated harm. They stated that health effects from radio frequency emissions and the need for coverage were not matters for assessment under the GPDO's prior approval process. Regarding the heritage asset, the officer presentation indicated that the proposed mast would have a fairly decent separation distance and be screened by trees, and that the visual impact would not be directly in front of the mural. The applicant's adherence to statutory consultation requirements was confirmed.

Committee Discussion: Councillor Rosie Parry noted the significance of the mural and questioned the extent to which its proximity to the proposed mast was a material consideration. The case officer, Thomas Simnet, clarified the separation distance and tree coverage, suggesting limited viewpoints where both the mural and mast would be visible together. Councillor John Muldoon, Vice Chair of the committee, proposed accepting the officers' recommendations, highlighting that the application operated within a narrow framework and that there were no grounds for refusal within that scope. The proposal was seconded and carried unanimously.

Conditions: The prior approval was granted subject to a condition requiring the monopole to be finished in light grey (RAL 7035) and the equipment cabinets in fir green (RAL 6009) to ensure acceptable external appearance.