Telecommunications apparatus under Part 16 explained

Part 16 telecoms permitted development is the reason a 5G mast can appear on a verge without a full planning application. Schedule 2 Part 16 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 grants rights to electronic communications code operators, and for most ground-based masts those rights come with a condition: the operator must first obtain the authority's prior approval of siting and appearance.

Siting and appearance is the whole of it. Need, competition and health all sit outside what the council may decide, which is why objections about coverage or radiation never succeed.

Who can use the Part 16 rights

The rights belong to electronic communications code operators, meaning operators with code rights under the Electronic Communications Code in the Communications Act 2003. A landowner, a developer or a company installing a private mast for its own use cannot rely on Part 16 at all and needs ordinary planning permission.

That is the first thing to check on any notice that lands through the door. The application will name the operator, and the operator either holds code rights or it does not.

Part 16 covers more than masts. It reaches the installation, alteration and replacement of apparatus, equipment cabinets, poles, antennas on buildings and the use of land for a mast, each with its own limits and its own conditions.

What the dimension limits control

Part 16 works by setting limits and then disapplying the right where a limit is exceeded. The limits deal with the height of ground-based masts, how much an existing mast may be increased in height or width, how far apparatus on a building may project above the highest part of the roof, the size of equipment cabinets and how close apparatus may come to a highway.

Those figures were relaxed in 2022 to speed up network rollout, with separate and tighter numbers kept for protected land. Because the amendments changed several thresholds at once, read the current consolidated text of Part 16 on the legislation website rather than an older summary, and check which limit applies to the apparatus in front of you.

Three practical consequences follow. Taller masts can now be installed without a full application in unprotected areas. Existing masts can be strengthened and shared rather than replaced, which is the policy intention. And cabinets have become larger, which is usually what prompts complaints on a residential street rather than the mast itself.

Exceeding any limit removes the permitted development right entirely, so the operator then needs full planning permission and the authority can consider the proposal on all its planning merits.

Prior approval of siting and appearance

For most new ground-based masts, and for several other categories of apparatus, Part 16 makes the right conditional on the operator applying to the authority for a determination as to whether its prior approval of siting and appearance is required.

The application has to describe the development, include a plan showing where it goes, and be accompanied by the fee. The operator also has to publicise the proposal, by site notice and in some cases by notifying occupiers, and the government's code of practice on wireless network development expects operators to engage with the authority before submitting and to consult schools and colleges where apparatus is proposed nearby.

What the authority then decides is narrow. It can say prior approval is not required, approve the siting and appearance, approve with conditions, or refuse. It cannot refuse because the operator already has coverage, because a different site would serve a competitor better, or because residents are worried about emissions.

Conditions in practice address colour, finish, screening, landscaping, cabinet positioning and removal when the apparatus becomes redundant.

The 56 day period and deemed consent

The clock is the part that matters most to anyone wanting to comment. If the authority does not give notice of its determination within 56 days of receiving a valid application, the development may proceed as if prior approval had been granted.

That is a genuine deemed consent, not a target. A council that lets the period run out loses the ability to control siting and appearance for that installation, and there is no mechanism to recover it.

The practical effect for a resident is that representations have to be made quickly. By the time a site notice has weathered for three weeks, half the period may be gone. The same deemed approval logic appears in other parts of the Order, including the Part 3 procedure that governs prior approval for changes of use, though the detailed steps differ.

Designated land and protected sites

Article 2(3) land, which covers conservation areas, National Parks, the Broads, National Landscapes and World Heritage Sites, carries tighter limits and in places removes the right altogether. Sites of special scientific interest, scheduled monuments and land within the curtilage of a listed building are treated separately again.

Listed building consent is a different consent and Part 16 does not touch it. Apparatus fixed to a listed building, or affecting its special interest, needs consent under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 whatever the Order says about planning permission. Operators sometimes miss this, and so do councils.

In a conservation area the appearance question becomes the whole argument, and a well-prepared objection about materials, column design and cabinet siting can shift an installation along the street even where it cannot stop it.

The ICNIRP declaration and health

An application under Part 16 must be accompanied by a declaration that the equipment and installation comply with the international guidelines on limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

National guidance on communications is clear about the consequence. Where an installation meets those guidelines, it is not for the planning system to determine health safeguards, and the authority should not require more. Councils that have tried to impose precautionary conditions or refuse on health grounds have been overturned on appeal.

This is the single most common misunderstanding in mast objections, and it leads to a lot of wasted effort. An objection built on health will be summarised in the officer report and then set aside. The same objector arguing that the mast sits in front of a listed shopfront, or that the cabinet blocks a pavement used by wheelchair users, is raising something the officer has to address.

Commenting on a prior approval application

Four things make a representation on a mast application effective.

1. Address siting first. Name the alternative positions on the same street and explain why each is less harmful, using the operator's own search area if it is published.
2. Address appearance second. Column type, colour, antenna shrouding, cabinet grouping and the relationship to street trees and sightlines are all legitimate.
3. Use the accessibility argument where it applies. Apparatus that reduces effective footway width affects people with buggies and wheelchairs, and that is a planning matter.
4. Send it inside the first fortnight, given the 56 day limit.

Where an operator is refused, it may appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and the appeal is decided on the same narrow grounds. The procedural comparison with other prior approval regimes is instructive: evidence requirements under Class Q for agricultural buildings are heavier precisely because the matters the authority may consider are wider.

Where full planning permission is needed

Full permission is required where the operator has no code rights, where any Part 16 limit is exceeded, where the right is removed on designated land, or where a condition of the Order is not met. In those cases the application is determined on all material considerations, and the documents expand accordingly to include a planning statement addressing policy on communications infrastructure, a landscape and visual appraisal in sensitive locations, and heritage assessment where a designated asset is affected.

Dimensional limits are the hinge in every permitted development class, and reading them precisely is the same discipline that decides the 50 per cent curtilage rule for garden outbuildings.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports a telecommunications application on your site is likely to need.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. A lawful development certificate is the only formal way to confirm that works are lawful. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.