Telecommunications development under Part 16

When a mast notice goes up on a lamp post, the council has usually already been told rather than asked. Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO 2015 gives electronic communications code operators permitted development rights for a wide range of apparatus, and for much of it the operator needs only prior approval of siting and appearance rather than planning permission. That narrows what a local planning authority can take into account, and it narrows what an objection can usefully say.

Understanding that boundary is the difference between a representation an officer must address and one that gets a single line in the report.

What Part 16 allows

Part 16 covers development by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator: masts and their supporting structures, antennas, equipment cabinets, radio equipment housing, poles, and associated works including access and fencing. The rights sit alongside the Electronic Communications Code in the Communications Act 2003, which governs an operator's rights over land, and the two are separate questions. Code rights deal with the operator's relationship with the landowner. Part 16 deals with planning.

Much of the apparatus falls within permitted development subject to conditions on height, dimensions and location. Some of it requires the operator to apply to the authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for the siting and appearance of the development.

Heights and dimensions have been amended more than once, most substantially in 2022, when the permitted heights for ground-based masts were increased and greater latitude was given for strengthening and sharing existing masts. Read the current consolidated text of Part 16 on legislation.gov.uk rather than any summary, including this one, before relying on a figure.

Prior approval of siting and appearance

Where prior approval applies, the authority is determining two things and only two things: where the apparatus goes, and what it looks like.

That is a real power. An authority can require a mast to move along a street, to sit behind a building line rather than in front of it, to be a slimmer design, to carry a colour or finish appropriate to its setting, or to have the cabinets grouped and screened. What it cannot do is refuse because a mast is not needed, because another operator already covers the area, or because residents are worried about radio frequency exposure.

The procedure runs to a 56-day clock. If the authority does not notify the operator of its determination within that period, the operator may proceed in accordance with the submitted details. Authorities miss the deadline more often than they admit, and once it passes there is no way back.

The operator must also display a site notice and, for many types of apparatus, serve notice on the occupier of the land and in some cases consult more widely. Where the proposal is near a school or college, the code of practice for wireless network development in England sets an expectation of consultation with the institution, and authorities do take a failure to follow it seriously even though the code is not binding law.

The certificate on public exposure

Every application for prior approval for mast development must be accompanied by a declaration that the equipment, when operational, will comply with the ICNIRP guidelines on public exposure to electromagnetic fields.

National policy is explicit that where that declaration is provided, the authority should not question the health aspects further. Health is regulated through the exposure guidelines and the operators' compliance regime, not through the planning system. Officers apply this consistently, and committees that try to refuse on health grounds are advised against it.

This frustrates people, and it is worth being straight about why. Members of the public raising exposure concerns are not raising a material planning consideration in the legal sense, so an objection built on health will not affect the outcome however many signatures it carries. An objection about the position of a 20 metre mast directly outside a bedroom window, or its effect on a conservation area frontage, is a siting and appearance point, and that has to be answered.

Designated land and other restrictions

On Article 2(3) land, which covers conservation areas, National Landscapes, National Parks, the Broads and World Heritage Sites, the permitted development rights in Part 16 are more restricted. Lower height limits apply, some development that is permitted elsewhere requires prior approval, and some is excluded from the right altogether so that a full planning application is needed.

Listed buildings are a separate control. Attaching apparatus to a listed building needs listed building consent regardless of whether Part 16 allows the development, and the same applies to works affecting a scheduled monument. Sites of special scientific interest carry their own restrictions.

Advertisement control is also separate. Signage on a cabinet or a compound is dealt with under the advertisement regulations rather than Part 16.

Other permitted development rights follow similar logic and hit similar limits on designated land, whether that is electric vehicle charge points or solar panels on commercial roofs.

Commenting on a prior approval notification

The window is short, because the 56 days includes the authority's consultation. Practical steps, in order:

1. Find the application reference on the council's planning register. Prior approval notifications are registered and published like any other application.
2. Read the submitted drawings and the supporting statement, particularly the alternative sites assessment if one is provided.
3. Write to the case officer inside the consultation period, addressing siting and appearance only.
4. Be specific about position. Name the alternative location you say is better and explain why it is available and less harmful.
5. Be specific about appearance. Height, diameter, colour, finish, the number and position of cabinets, and the effect on a particular view or frontage.
6. Ask your ward councillor to consider a referral if your council's scheme of delegation allows it, and do it early.

An alternative sites assessment deserves more attention than it usually gets. Operators submit one because siting is the matter in issue, and if it dismisses a plausible alternative in a single line, that is a point the officer has to deal with.

An illustrative example

An operator applies for prior approval for a ground-based monopole with three cabinets on a suburban verge outside a row of Victorian terraces, close to a conservation area boundary. Residents object on health grounds and on the loss of an outlook. The officer report records that the ICNIRP declaration has been provided and that health cannot be considered, and that loss of a private view is not a material consideration. It then addresses the two points that are material: whether the pole could sit 40 metres further along the verge beside a commercial frontage, and whether the cabinets could be relocated behind an existing wall. The authority refuses prior approval on siting, the operator resubmits in the alternative position, and it is approved. This example is illustrative and not drawn from a decided case.

What a council can and cannot refuse on

Where the development falls outside the permitted development rights altogether, because of its height, its location on designated land or the type of apparatus, the operator must apply for full planning permission. At that point the whole range of material considerations opens up, including landscape and visual effects and the availability of alternatives, and the evidence base looks like any other application.

The telecommunications compliance work behind that kind of submission usually needs an author with radio frequency engineering competence, and professional review is strongly advised.

Reform in this area is frequent and the height limits in particular have moved several times, so it is worth following changes through the planning law timeline rather than relying on guidance written a few years ago.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the current text of Part 16 and the position with your local planning authority before relying on anything here. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.