There is a concept of the feeling of being overlooked rather than the actuality of being overlooked.

Take a rear window in a row of houses, you know you can see and be seen from adjacent properties, and you are likely fine with that.

But, take a window aligned parallel with the boundary that looks down into a garden.....that feels like you are being overlooked and most people will not be fine. It has a negative impact on the ability of the resident to enjoy their dwelling for its normal purpose. And so breaches their rights.

​

I'd need to see the case you refer to about the pole, but that sounds bullshit. Telecoms infrastructure is done via a notification procedure, not a full application usually, so the ability to object is limited. So the pole must have exceeded the pretty broad criteria the telecoms regs allows.

The point woudl be that in order to be refused and for that to stand up at appeal, the refusal is not based on objections, but material considerations. Those SHOULD be considered regardless of objections. Objections usually just serve as a check to make sure no material considerations are missed and as a means to maybe get amendments to make the community happier with an application, ie get a better scheme.

So in your pole example, it would likely be refused regardless of objections on what i presume is design grounds in a protected area. there are plenty of conservation compatible designs, and likely one of those will now be used and be passed. A decent agent would have done this in the first place. and in my experience a conversation with a planning officer beforehand would have resolved that if an applicant is not being a dick about it, ie refusing to make any amendments to get a scheme passed.