Part 16 prior approval for masts beside a full application
Telecoms development under Part 16 of the GPDO 2015 is determined on siting and appearance alone, within 56 days. Here is where that route stops and a full planning application takes over.
Part 16 prior approval for a mast is a determination about siting and appearance, decided within 56 days, with no scope to assess the need for the network or the health effects of radio emissions. A full planning application is a different exercise altogether: the whole planning balance is open, the usual determination period applies, and the council can refuse on any material consideration. Knowing which route a proposal falls into tells you what you can argue and how long you have to argue it.
Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 2015 grants rights to electronic communications code operators. The permitted dimensions were widened in 2022, and they differ between designated land and everywhere else, so read the current class text rather than working from an older note.
What Part 16 permits and where it stops
Class A covers the installation, alteration and replacement of electronic communications apparatus by a code operator. The rights are hedged with height, width and siting limits, and with conditions about restoring land when apparatus is removed.
The rights are cut back sharply on article 2(3) land, which means conservation areas, National Landscapes, National Parks, the Broads and World Heritage Sites, and further restricted on sites of special scientific interest, in the curtilage of listed buildings and on scheduled monuments. Several operations that are permitted elsewhere need a full application in those places. Where an Article 4 direction has been made, the rights can be withdrawn entirely for a defined area.
So the first question on any mast is not about design. It is whether the site sits in designated land, because that single fact changes the consent route, the evidence required and the grounds on which the council can refuse.
Prior approval of siting and appearance only
Where prior approval applies, the operator applies to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether its approval will be required to the siting and appearance of the development. Those two words set the boundary of the assessment.
Siting covers the position of the column and the cabinets, the relationship to the highway and to footway width, the distance from dwellings and from heritage assets, and whether a different position on the same street would work better. Appearance covers height, slenderness, colour and finish, antenna shrouding, cabinet size and grouping, and the cumulative visual effect of street furniture. What falls outside: the commercial need for coverage, the choice of technology, the operator's business case, and the health effects of radio frequency emissions.
| Feature | Part 16 prior approval | Full planning application |
|---|---|---|
| What is assessed | Siting and appearance only | All material considerations |
| Statutory period | 56 days, with deemed approval if missed | The ordinary determination period |
| Publicity | Site notice and consultation as required by the DMPO | Full publicity and neighbour notification |
| Refusal grounds | Siting or appearance unacceptable | Any sustained planning objection |
| Conditions | Limited to those in the class and the approval | Full conditions available |
| Appeal | Against refusal of prior approval | Against refusal of permission |
The 56 day rule is the sharpest difference. If the authority does not give notice of its determination within 56 days of a valid application, the development is treated as approved and the operator may build it as applied for. Councils lose masts to that clock every year, usually because the application sat in validation.
Where a full application is required
A full application is needed when the apparatus exceeds the permitted dimensions, when the site falls into one of the excluded categories on designated land, when the operator is not a code operator, when an Article 4 direction has removed the rights, or when the proposal includes development that Part 16 does not cover at all, such as a new access track or substantial ground works.
In those cases the council assesses the scheme in the round. Design, heritage setting, landscape effect, residential amenity, highway safety and the development plan all come into play, and the supporting documents expand accordingly. A Planning Statement setting the proposal against the relevant development plan policies is the minimum, with a Heritage Statement where a designated asset or its setting is affected and a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment for a tall column in a sensitive townscape.
The conformity declaration and health objections
Applications for mast development must be accompanied by a declaration that the installation will comply with the public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. National policy is clear that where that declaration is provided, authorities should not question the need for the network or determine health safeguards, because those are regulated elsewhere.
This is the single biggest source of frustration at committee. Residents write in about health, officers explain that the point is not open to them, and the objection is recorded and given no weight. The practical answer for a community is to redirect the effort: a well evidenced argument about the position of the column relative to a listed shopfront, or about a cabinet blocking a footway below the width needed for a wheelchair, is an argument the council can act on. Whether a site goes to committee at all is itself a judgement, and our note on committee determination or a delegated decision explains how those thresholds work.
Alternative sites and mast sharing
Operators are expected to show that they have considered sharing an existing mast or site, and to explain why alternatives were discounted. The code of practice for wireless network development in England sets out what good pre-application engagement looks like, including early contact with the authority and with parish councils.
A credible alternative site assessment names the candidate sites, gives the reason each was rejected in technical terms, and shows the search area on a plan. A table listing three sites with the words not technically feasible against each is worth very little, and it is the weakness an objector should attack. Where the operator has run proper engagement, the application tends to arrive with a shorter list and a better explanation.
Conditions and what happens afterwards
Prior approval conditions are narrow. Expect agreement of the colour and finish, the cabinet position, screening or planting, and restoration of the land when the apparatus is no longer needed. Part 16 itself imposes removal and restoration obligations when apparatus is no longer required for electronic communications purposes.
On a full application, the council can go further: a landscaping scheme, a specific antenna shroud design, a limit on additional apparatus without further consent, and a requirement for the column to be removed within a set period after the use ceases. A Telecommunications Compliance statement is the document that brings the declaration, the site search and the design justification into one place for either route.
This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.
PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.
Frequently asked questions
What happens if the council misses the 56 day deadline?
The development is treated as approved. Where an authority fails to give notice of its determination within 56 days of a valid prior approval application under Part 16, the operator may proceed with the development as described in the application. The clock runs from validation, so disputes about whether an application was complete matter a great deal.
Can a council refuse a mast on health grounds?
No. Where the application is accompanied by a declaration of conformity with the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines, national policy says authorities should not question the need for the network or set their own health safeguards. Objections on health are recorded and given no weight. Siting and appearance arguments are the ones that can change a decision.
Does Part 16 apply in a conservation area?
Only in part. Article 2(3) land, which includes conservation areas, National Landscapes, National Parks, the Broads and World Heritage Sites, attracts tighter limits and excludes several operations that are permitted elsewhere. Those excluded works need a full planning application, which opens up heritage, design and amenity grounds that prior approval does not reach.
What counts as a valid objection to a prior approval application?
Anything that goes to siting or appearance. The position of the column relative to a heritage asset or a junction, footway width left beside a cabinet, the availability of a less prominent position on the same street, column height and slenderness, finish and colour, and the cumulative clutter of existing street furniture are all legitimate points.
Do operators have to share an existing mast?
They are expected to consider it and to explain why alternatives were discounted, with the code of practice for wireless network development in England setting out the engagement expected. There is no absolute duty to share. A site assessment that names candidates, shows the search area and gives technical reasons for rejection is far harder to challenge than a bare list.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.