I don't like to defend NIMBYs, but...
It seems to me that an alternative way of phrasing this story would be:
"Large companies would like existing laws to be changed so that they don't have to spend as much money to preserve their market positions."
Before allowing them to put up double-height masts, I think it's a fair question to ask why the existing law was written the way it is. There may have been good reasons which are no longer valid, for example. It would be nice to know.
The cynic in me also thinks that we are going to see a lot more calls to change inconvenient laws which stand in the way of corporations making vast amounts of money at the expense of the environment (or the health of the public) in the future.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
