Part 16 telecommunications masts and prior approval
Permitted development rights for electronic communications code operators narrow the council's decision to siting and appearance. What the class covers, what the ICNIRP declaration settles, and how the 56-day deadline works.
Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 2015 gives electronic communications code operators permitted development rights to install, alter and replace apparatus, and it narrows the council's role to two questions: siting and appearance. Everything else an objector raises, and most of what a parish council writes in, falls outside what the authority may take into account. Understanding that boundary is most of the job when you are advising on a mast application.
The rights are not unconditional. They apply only to a code operator, they are capped by height and position, they are cut back on designated land, and they are exercised through a prior approval procedure with a hard deadline. Get any of those wrong and the installation is unauthorised development rather than permitted.
What Part 16 permits
The class covers development by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator for the purpose of the operator's network. In practice that is the installation, alteration or replacement of masts, antennas, dishes, cabinets and radio equipment housing, along with ancillary works such as access tracks, fencing and power supply.
An electronic communications code operator is an entity with code rights under the Electronic Communications Code in Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003. That status matters, because a landowner erecting a mast for their own use, or a wireless internet provider without code powers, does not have these rights at all and needs planning permission in the ordinary way. Checking the applicant's status is the first thing to do when a mast appears on a validation list.
The Order also permits emergency works and temporary apparatus in defined circumstances, with time limits on how long temporary equipment may remain. Those provisions are used for events and for coverage during network upgrades, and they attract complaints when the equipment stays longer than the class allows.
Siting and appearance, and nothing else
The prior approval application asks the authority to determine whether its approval is required as to the siting and appearance of the development. That is the entire scope of the decision.
Need is not a consideration. The authority cannot refuse because another operator already has a mast nearby, because it thinks coverage is adequate, or because it would prefer the operator to share an existing structure, although site sharing is something the operator should have addressed in its supporting material. Land ownership, lease terms and rent are not material. And, as covered below, health effects are dealt with by a declaration rather than by the authority.
What is in scope is useful ground: the position of the mast relative to buildings and vantage points, its height and slenderness, the colour and finish of the apparatus and cabinets, the treatment of the compound and fencing, the effect on a skyline, and the design of any screening. A Telecommunications Compliance submission that addresses those points with photomontages from agreed viewpoints usually settles the argument faster than one that argues about coverage maps.
Height limits and designated land
The Order sets maximum heights for ground-based masts and separate limits for apparatus installed on buildings, measured in ways the class defines precisely. Those limits were raised for parts of England by the 2022 amendments to the Order, which also relaxed the rules on strengthening existing masts so they can carry additional equipment.
Article 2(3) land carries tighter limits and, for some development, removes the rights entirely. That land comprises conservation areas, National Parks, National Landscapes, World Heritage Sites and the Broads. Sites within a scheduled monument, or in the curtilage of a listed building, need separate consents whatever Part 16 says about the planning position.
Read the current text of the class rather than a summary, including the 2022 amendments, because the figures have changed more than once and older guidance circulates widely. Where a proposal exceeds the limits, the route is a full planning application, and at that point the ordinary development plan tests and the visual impact evidence in a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment become relevant in a way they are not under prior approval.
The ICNIRP declaration
Every prior approval application for mast development must be accompanied by a declaration that the equipment, in combination with other installations at the site, will comply with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines for public exposure to electromagnetic fields.
That declaration settles the health question for planning purposes. National guidance is clear that where the declaration is provided, the local planning authority should not question the health effects further, and inspectors apply the same approach on appeal. Objections about radiation, about proximity to a school, and about cumulative exposure cannot found a refusal.
This is the point where advising a parish council or a residents group requires some care. The concern is real to the people raising it, and telling them it is irrelevant lands badly. The accurate statement is narrower: the health question is regulated through a separate exposure standard, and the planning system is not the forum in which that standard is revisited.
Consultation before the application
The industry and government code of practice on wireless network development sets expectations for pre-application engagement, including notifying the local authority of the operator's rollout plans, consulting the authority on candidate sites, and consulting the school or college where apparatus is proposed on or near its land.
The authority itself must publicise the prior approval application, and objectors have the usual opportunity to comment. Where a site is contentious, a consultant acting for an operator saves time by producing viewpoint photomontages, a site selection summary showing which alternatives were considered and why they were discounted, and a colour and finish schedule, before the 56-day clock starts running.
Ground-based masts against rooftop installations
The two raise different arguments and different evidence.
| Issue | Ground-based mast | Rooftop or building-mounted |
|---|---|---|
| Main visual question | Skyline and long views, mast slenderness | Views from the street below, roofscape clutter |
| Compound treatment | Fencing, surfacing, access track, landscaping | Screening of cabinets and cable runs at roof level |
| Designated land effect | Rights reduced or removed | Rights reduced, often with lower height limits |
| Typical mitigation | Colour, siting against a backdrop of trees, reduced compound | Setting back from the parapet, matching finishes, grouping apparatus |
| Heritage overlay | Setting of listed buildings and scheduled monuments | Listed building consent if the host building is listed |
Rooftop schemes on tall buildings attract fewer objections but more technical conditions, particularly where the host building is in residential use and access for maintenance is shared.
Refusals, appeals and the 56-day clock
The authority has 56 days from receipt of a valid application to notify the applicant whether prior approval is required and, if so, whether it is granted. If it does not, the development may proceed in accordance with the details submitted. The mechanics of that deadline are the same across the Order's prior approval classes, and the article on the 56-day prior approval deadline sets out how it is calculated and where it goes wrong.
A refusal, or a refusal of approval for siting and appearance, can be appealed to the Planning Inspectorate under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspectors deal with these appeals quickly and on narrow grounds, and the successful ones usually turn on photomontages and a credible alternative sites assessment rather than on policy argument.
Where an installation has gone in outside the class, the authority is in enforcement territory, and the operator's options are a retrospective application or removal. The comparison with Part 11 demolition prior approval is instructive, because both classes share the same structure of a narrow list of matters and a fixed deadline, and both produce the same trap when the submitted details and the built result diverge.
For applications that fall outside Part 16 entirely, the supporting pack starts with a Planning Statement setting the proposal against the adopted development plan.
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
Can a council refuse a mast on health grounds?
No. Every prior approval application for mast development must include a declaration of compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines on public exposure to electromagnetic fields. National guidance says the authority should not question health effects where that declaration is provided, and inspectors take the same approach on appeal. The health standard sits outside the planning system.
Who can use Part 16 permitted development rights?
Only an electronic communications code operator, meaning an entity with code rights under the Electronic Communications Code in Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003, or someone acting on its behalf. A landowner installing a mast for private use, or a provider without code powers, needs an ordinary planning permission instead.
How tall can a mast be under permitted development?
The Order sets maximum heights for ground-based masts and separate limits for apparatus on buildings, with lower limits on article 2(3) land such as conservation areas and National Parks. The figures were raised by the 2022 amendments, so check the current text of Part 16 rather than older guidance before scoping a site.
What happens if the council misses the 56-day deadline?
If the authority has not notified the applicant within 56 days of receiving a valid application whether prior approval is required or granted, the development may proceed in accordance with the details submitted. The calculation of the period and the validity of the application are both regularly disputed, so keep the receipt evidence.
Does site sharing have to be considered?
The operator is expected to address why an existing structure could not be shared, and the code of practice on wireless network development sets that expectation. The authority cannot refuse simply because it would prefer sharing, but a site selection summary showing which alternatives were considered and discounted makes the appearance case much easier to defend.
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.