Part 16 prior approval or full permission for a mast

A mast that falls inside Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO 2015 already has planning permission. What the operator applies for is prior approval of siting and appearance, and the council's power stops at those two words. A mast that falls outside Part 16 needs a full planning application, and then everything is in play: landscape character, heritage setting, residential amenity, cumulative clutter and design.

So the first job on any site is not to draft a justification. It is to measure the proposal against the class and decide which door you are walking through.

What the two routes actually test

The narrow scope of the prior approval test is the reason operators fight to stay inside the class, and the reason councils and parish councils push to argue the proposal falls outside it. An objection that the area already has adequate coverage goes nowhere on a Part 16 application. The same objection, reframed as visual harm from a 25-metre lattice tower on a ridgeline, goes somewhere.

Reading Part 16 before you design

Part 16 Class A permits development by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator for the purpose of the operator's network. That covers new ground-based masts, apparatus on existing buildings and structures, equipment cabinets, and the strengthening or alteration of existing masts, each subject to limits on height, dimensions and location.

Those limits have changed more than once, most recently through amendments aimed at faster mobile network rollout, and they differ between ordinary land and protected land. Do not work from a figure quoted in an older article or a supplier's leaflet. Open Part 16 on legislation.gov.uk, check the version in force on the date you intend to submit, and read the conditions as well as the limitations, because several of the operational restrictions sit in the conditions rather than in the height table.

Three exclusions catch people out. Listed buildings and scheduled monuments are outside the class. Sites of special scientific interest carry their own restrictions. And apparatus on a building within article 2(3) land is treated differently from the same apparatus on the same building 200 metres outside the boundary.

Where the answer is arguable, an application under section 192 of the 1990 Act settles it formally, which is the comparison drawn in a lawful development certificate or planning permission.

The 56-day clock

Part 16 gives the local planning authority 56 days from receipt of the application to give notice of its determination. If it does not, the operator may proceed in accordance with the details submitted.

That provision does real work in practice, and it also generates most of the disputes. The submission has to be complete and the details have to be the details you then build, because the deemed route only covers what was described. Keep the covering letter, the submitted drawings and the proof of delivery. Councils have challenged development built under a deemed approval on the basis that the application was never validly made, and the burden of showing otherwise sits with the operator.

The broader difference between a prior approval regime and a full application is set out in prior approval or planning permission: the difference.

Protected land changes the answer

Article 2(3) land means conservation areas, National Parks, National Landscapes, the Broads and World Heritage Sites. Inside those boundaries the class permits less, and the appearance judgement the officer makes is harder because the statutory duties bite. In a conservation area the council must pay special attention to preserving or enhancing character and appearance under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In a National Park or National Landscape there is a statutory duty to seek to further the purposes of the designation.

For a tall ground-based mast in any of those settings, a short landscape and visual appraisal earns its cost even on a prior approval application, because it gives the officer the material to grant on siting and appearance rather than refuse for lack of information. Photomontages from agreed viewpoints, a zone of theoretical visibility and an honest account of the worst view are worth more than a paragraph asserting that the mast will read as part of the street scene. A full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared to GLVIA3 is the right instrument where a full application is going in on a sensitive site.

Evidence the operator supplies either way

Whichever route applies, the expected pack is similar in substance:

1. A description of the network need the site addresses, at a level that does not invite the council to second-guess the network design.
2. An account of alternative sites and structures considered, including sharing an existing mast or rooftop, with the reason each was discounted.
3. A declaration of conformity with the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines.
4. Evidence of pre-application consultation consistent with the Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England, including notification of schools and colleges where the site is near one.
5. Drawings showing the apparatus, the compound, the cabinets, the fencing and the access.
6. Photomontages or a visual appraisal proportionate to the sensitivity of the setting.

A Telecommunications Compliance report is the document that gathers those strands. Councils usually expect a suitably qualified author for the radio frequency and exposure elements, so a drafted report is a starting point for a professional to check and sign rather than a finished submission.

Choosing the full application deliberately

Sometimes it is the better route even when the class is available.

A proposal that only just squeezes inside the limits, on a site where the council has objected before, buys years of uncertainty. A full application decided on its merits produces a permission that survives a change of officer, can be amended under section 73, and gives a right of appeal on the whole case rather than on siting and appearance alone. Where the operator wants a taller mast that can carry three networks and future equipment, the full route allows that argument to be made openly against local plan policy on digital infrastructure.

The trade-off is time and exposure. Eight weeks becomes four months with a committee cycle, and the objection base gets a wider target.

If you are assembling either submission, browse all 66 PlanScope report types and start a draft to see which supporting documents the council is likely to ask for.

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.