Key Points
- A 20‑metre 5G‑capable telecommunications mast has been approved for installation on a grass verge near Sandford Street in New Cross, Lewisham, under the national permitted‑development regime for telecoms infrastructure.
- The applicant, Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited, applied for “prior approval” from Lewisham Council; the mast itself is covered by permitted‑development rights, so the council could not block the technology but only assess siting and appearance.
- Lewisham Council’s Planning Committee B met on 16 April 2026 and approved the prior‑approval application, noting that the council’s scope is limited to siting and appearance under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) for electronic communications code operators.
- More than a dozen objections were logged by local residents, who expressed concerns about the height, visual impact, and potential effects on the streetscape and property values.
- The council imposed a condition that the monopole be finished in light grey (RAL 7035) and the equipment cabinets in fir green (RAL 6009) to mitigate visual harm.
- The case is being cited by transparency advocates as an example of how national permitted‑development rules can limit local planning control over telecoms infrastructure even when residents object.
New Cross, Lewisham (South London News) April 22, 2026 – A 20‑metre 5G‑capable telecommunications mast is set to be installed on a grass verge near Sandford Street in New Cross, Lewisham, after the council granted prior approval to proposals submitted by Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited. As reported by Open Council Network researcher Emily Doyle, the Planning Committee B of Lewisham Council met on 16 April 2026 and agreed that the siting and appearance of the monopole were acceptable within the narrow powers afforded by national permitted‑development rules.
What is the mast and where will it stand?
As outlined in the Planning Committee papers cited by Open Council Network, the proposal is for a 20‑metre tall monopole with six radio antennas and two transmission dishes, located on a grass verge adjacent to Sandford Street in New Cross.
The site is described as a small piece of public highway/green verge, and the equipment would be accessed via a secure compound near the existing carriageway.
Cornerstone has framed the mast as part of a wider rollout of 4G and 5G infrastructure, noting that such installations are intended to support mobile‑network coverage without requiring full planning consent under the national regime.
Why did Lewisham Council call it in?
Electronic communications networks in England largely operate under permitted‑development rights set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO), under Part 16, Class A.
Under this framework, certain telecoms infrastructure automatically has planning permission, but where new masts are involved, the law requires a “prior‑approval” step so that local authorities can assess siting, appearance, and some amenity‑related impacts.
As explained in guidance summarised by Open Council Network, planning officers determined that the council could not object to the telecoms use itself, but only to how the mast was placed and how it looked.
A councillor‑level decision was therefore triggered because the council had received more than 10 objections from local residents, which under Lewisham’s own procedures calls for a committee meeting.
What were residents’ main concerns?
Residents of New Cross raised multiple objections ahead of the 16 April committee meeting. As reported by Open Council Network, more than a dozen written comments were received, many of which focused on the height and visual impact of a 20‑metre monopole in a residential‑adjacent area.
Some residents told the council that the proposed mast would be “out of scale” with the surrounding buildings and streetscape, potentially affecting the character of the neighbourhood and nearby property values.
Other objections pointed to uncertainty about the technology’s long‑term health and environmental impact, although the council has noted that such issues fall outside its statutory remit and are instead matters for national regulators and public‑health bodies.
Councillors reiterated that, under the GPDO, they had no power to substitute their own judgment on the necessity of 5G deployment, only to judge whether the mast’s siting and appearance were acceptable.
How did the council justify its decision?
In the committee papers quoted by Open Council Network, officers stated that the proposed mast’s height and location were within the permitted limits under Class A of the GPDO and that the visual impact would be mitigated by the condition that the pole be painted light grey (RAL 7035) and the equipment cabinets finished in fir green (RAL 6009).
These colours were chosen to reduce contrast with the natural and urban surroundings, aligning with the council’s guidance on earth‑tone finishes for telecoms equipment.
The report also noted that the mast would be set back from the main highway and would not require any new roads or substantial hard‑surfacing, further limiting on‑site impact.
Officers emphasised that, given the constraints of the prior‑approval regime, the proposal was assessed solely against siting and appearance, not against the broader merits of 5G technology or the need for a tower in that precise location.
What does this mean for local planning control?
Transparency campaigners and local‑government observers have highlighted this case as an illustration of how national permitted‑development rules can leave residents feeling that their concerns are “heard but not answered.” As Open Council Network’s Emily Doyle observed, the committee’s unanimous vote to approve the mast under the GPDO framework
“highlights how national permitted‑development rights can sometimes override local planning concerns, particularly for essential infrastructure.”
At the same time, government and sector documents stress that Class A rights are designed to speed up the rollout of digital infrastructure while still allowing local authorities to safeguard key visual and heritage‑related aspects. In practice, this means that councils such as Lewisham can negotiate siting, colour, and minor design tweaks, but not veto the underlying telecoms scheme.
How does this fit into wider telecoms policy?
The Lewisham mast is one of hundreds of similar prior‑approval applications processed annually under the GPDO’s Class A provisions. Government consultations and policy statements underline that the permitted‑development regime for electronic communications code operators is intended to help bridge the digital divide and support coverage in both urban and rural areas, with prior‑approval mechanisms acting as a light‑touch check on local amenity.
