Part 16 telecoms masts and the prior approval procedure

When a mast notice appears on a lamp post near you, the council is not deciding whether the mast is needed. It is deciding two questions and only two: the siting and the appearance of the equipment. That is what Schedule 2 Part 16 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 allows it to consider, and an objection about anything else will be recorded and given no weight.

Understanding that changes how you respond. An objection about the position of the mast relative to a listed building, the sight line down a street, or the availability of a screened alternative fifteen metres away can succeed. An objection about health or about whether another operator already covers the area cannot.

Who the rights apply to

Part 16 rights belong to electronic communications code operators, meaning providers who hold code powers under the Communications Act 2003. Not every company installing an aerial has them, and the notification should say which operator is relying on the rights.

The rights cover masts, antennas on buildings, equipment cabinets, poles and the associated apparatus. They are subject to conditions and, for most substantial installations, to the prior approval procedure.

They are also subject to restrictions on designated land. On article 2(3) land, meaning conservation areas, National Landscapes, National Parks, the Broads and World Heritage Sites, and on sites of special scientific interest, the permitted rights are narrower, with lower height limits and further exclusions. Listed buildings and scheduled monuments have their own protection running alongside.

Height and dimension limits

The Order sets limits on mast height, on the height of apparatus above a building, and on the size of equipment cabinets, with different figures for unprotected land and for article 2(3) land.

Those figures have been amended, most substantially in 2022, and they will be amended again as network requirements change. Take them from the current text of the Order rather than from any secondary source, including this one. If a mast exceeds the limit for the land it sits on, the development is not permitted and a full planning application is required, which is a very different process with much wider grounds of objection.

That is the first thing worth checking on any notification: whether the operator is entitled to use the procedure at all.

The siting and appearance test

Prior approval under Part 16 asks whether the local planning authority's approval will be required for the siting and appearance of the development, and if so, whether that approval is given.

Siting covers the position on the ground or on the building, the relationship to other structures, the effect on views and on the setting of heritage assets, and whether a less harmful position is available. Appearance covers the height, bulk and design of the mast and its cabinets, the finish and colour, and whether screening or a different mast type would reduce the effect.

The determination period for these notifications is 56 days. If the authority does not determine within that period, the development may proceed as notified, which is why late objections are worse than useless.

Councils can and do refuse. The reasons that succeed are almost always specific: a mast in front of the principal elevation of a listed building where a position behind it exists, a monopole on a narrow pavement obstructing a pedestrian route, cabinets sited so they block a sight line at a junction, or an installation on a ridge line in a National Landscape where a lower alternative would be screened by existing vegetation.

The certificate the operator must submit

The operator has to submit a declaration that the installation, when operational, will comply with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines for public exposure to electromagnetic fields.

National policy is explicit about what follows. Where such a declaration is provided, health considerations and public concern cannot of themselves justify refusing prior approval. That is a national policy position, it is applied consistently by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal, and it means that an objection campaign based on health will not affect the outcome however many signatures it carries.

This is often experienced as unfair by residents, and the honest answer is that the planning system is not the forum for the argument. The exposure limits are set nationally and are enforced through a different route.

Where a mast is proposed near a school or college, national guidance expects the operator to discuss the proposal with the school beforehand, and the absence of that discussion is a legitimate point to raise about the process even though it does not change the test.

How to comment, and what to say

The operator displays a site notice and the authority publicises the notification, usually on its planning website under a reference indicating prior approval. Representations go to the case officer within the publicity period.

Make the comment specific and make it about siting or appearance:

• identify the exact receptor affected, whether that is a view, a heritage asset, a pedestrian route or a street scene, and say why
• suggest an alternative position and explain why it would be less harmful
• reference the conservation area appraisal or the listing description if a heritage asset is involved
• comment on the cabinets and ancillary equipment as well as the mast, since they are often the greater street level intrusion
• ask for finish, colour and screening conditions if the principle is unavoidable

Where the visual effect is the main concern on a prominent site, the evidence that carries weight is a proper visual analysis rather than an assertion. On a major installation in a sensitive landscape a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment or, in a townscape setting, a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment is the document that tests it, and where a listed building or conservation area is affected a Heritage Statement assessing significance is the right vehicle.

For operators and their agents, a Telecommunications Compliance statement covering the code powers, the ICNIRP declaration and the siting and appearance case is what the notification pack needs.

What happens if the council refuses

The operator may appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Appeals on Part 16 notifications are usually decided on written representations and turn narrowly on siting and appearance, so the council's reasons need to be evidenced on those grounds alone.

A refusal that recites health concerns or need will not survive, and it may expose the authority to a costs application. If you are objecting, help the officer by giving them a reason they can actually defend.

One practical note. Once a mast is installed, sharing between operators is common and generally does not require a further notification, so an installation approved for one operator may end up carrying equipment for several. That is worth knowing before assuming the visible outcome will match the drawing.

This is general guidance rather than legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.