Part 16 telecoms apparatus and the prior approval route

A telecoms mast prior approval under Part 16 is not a planning application in the ordinary sense, and that is the first thing to understand before objecting to one. Where an electronic communications code operator relies on Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 2015, the development already has planning permission from the Order. The council's role is limited to approving the siting and appearance of the apparatus, and nothing else.

So an objection about health, about property values, about the choice of operator or about whether the mast is needed is not something the council can act on. Objections about where the mast stands and what it looks like are.

What Part 16 permits for operators

Part 16 grants permitted development rights to code operators for a defined range of electronic communications development, including ground-based masts, apparatus on buildings, cabinets and associated equipment. Some of it needs no application at all. Some needs an application to the authority for a determination as to whether its prior approval is required for the siting and appearance of the development.

The rights carry conditions and limits on height, dimensions, position and the land involved, and those limits were changed in 2022 to allow taller new masts and the strengthening of existing ones without a full application. The figures matter, and because they have been amended more than once the only reliable source is the current text of Part 16 itself.

Where a proposal exceeds the limits, the operator needs full planning permission and the authority assesses it on all material considerations in the ordinary way. That is a different process with different rights of objection, and distinguishing the two is the first thing to check on any notice that arrives.

Siting and appearance as the only matters

The prior approval process asks a narrow question. Given that the development is permitted, is the particular location and the particular design acceptable, or should the apparatus be sited differently or look different.

Within that, the authority can consider the visual effect on the street scene, on a conservation area or on a heritage asset, the effect on trees, the position relative to residential windows, the colour and finish, and whether screening or a different support design would reduce the effect. It can refuse approval on those grounds, and it can approve subject to conditions about siting and appearance.

What falls outside the question is broader than people expect:

• whether there is a need for coverage in the area
• whether a different operator already has a mast nearby that could be shared, except so far as that bears on siting
• the health effects of radio frequency emissions
• the effect on property values
• the operator's commercial arrangements

Case officers write careful reports explaining this, and they are not avoiding the issue. The permission comes from the Order, and the council has no power to revisit it.

Height limits and where they changed

Ground-based masts have height limits that differ between unprotected land and article 2(3) land, which covers conservation areas, National Parks, National Landscapes, the Broads and World Heritage Sites. The 2022 amendments raised the limits for new masts and allowed existing masts to be strengthened and increased in height within stated bounds.

Read the current limits in the Order before commenting, because an objection asserting the wrong limit damages the rest of the representation. If the apparatus exceeds the limit for the land in question, the operator is in the wrong procedure, and saying so is far more effective than arguing about appearance.

On protected land the limits are lower and some rights are withdrawn altogether, which is why operators in conservation areas more often apply for full permission or propose apparatus disguised within existing structures.

The ICNIRP certificate requirement

An application for prior approval must be accompanied by a declaration that the equipment and installation will be designed to comply with the public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

Government policy is that where that declaration is provided, the authority should not question the health aspects of the proposal. The certificate is a self-declaration by the operator rather than an independent measurement, and that is a reasonable thing to be uncomfortable about. It does not change the position for the council, which cannot refuse on health grounds where the declaration is in place.

The honest advice to a community group is therefore unwelcome but useful: a campaign built on health will not succeed at prior approval stage. A campaign built on the visual effect on a listed church tower, the loss of a tree, or the availability of a less prominent position on the same side of the road sometimes does. Where the site lies within a sensitive setting, a short assessment of the visual effect, of the kind covered by a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment, is the material the authority can weigh. The compliance declaration itself sits alongside the technical material described on the Telecommunications Compliance page.

Protected land and the different limits

Where the apparatus is proposed on or affecting article 2(3) land, three things change. The permitted dimensions are tighter. Some classes of development are excluded from the rights entirely. And the authority's assessment of appearance carries more weight, because the statutory duty in relation to conservation areas and the setting of listed buildings still applies to the siting and appearance decision.

That last point is the strongest lever available to objectors in a historic area. The duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area applies to the decision the authority is making, even though that decision is narrow.

A representation that identifies the heritage asset, describes its significance, and explains how the proposed position and finish affect it is working with the grain of the process.

How to make representations

The authority is required to publicise a prior approval application, usually by site notice and sometimes by neighbour notification, and representations are considered on siting and appearance.

Practical points that improve a representation:

1. State the application reference and the date, and confirm you are commenting on siting and appearance.
2. Identify the specific effect, with a photograph taken from a named position.
3. Propose an alternative position or design, with a reason, rather than only objecting.
4. Identify any heritage asset, tree, or protected designation affected, by name.
5. Keep it short. One page with a photograph carries further than six pages of general objection.

The deadline is tight and the determination period is short, so representations arriving late may not be considered. Put the date the notice went up in your diary.

Why refusal reasons are narrow

Prior approval has a 56-day determination period. Where the authority does not notify the operator of its determination within that period, the development may proceed without approval, which is why the timetable is kept tightly.

Refusals, when they come, are expressed as siting and appearance objections and nothing else. A refusal reciting health concerns or need would be vulnerable on appeal, so officers write them narrowly and will not adopt wider objections however many are received.

Where a refusal is upheld, the usual outcome is a revised proposal in a different position or with a different design rather than abandonment, because the coverage requirement has not gone away. A community that engages early with the operator about acceptable positions tends to get a better result than one that fights a single application. Whether that engagement sits within a formal screening question is a separate matter, covered in prior approval applications and EIA screening.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. The limits and conditions in Part 16 have been amended several times and the current text is the only reliable statement of them, so check the Order and the authority's publicity before relying on this.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.