Walkthrough: a telecoms mast prior approval under Part 16

A telecoms mast prior approval application is not a planning application, and the council cannot refuse it because local people do not want a mast. Under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, electronic communications code operators have permitted development rights for a range of apparatus, and for the larger installations the right is subject to the authority's prior approval of siting and appearance only. Everything else, from health concerns to property values to whether another operator already covers the area, sits outside the two matters the council may consider.

What follows is an illustrative walkthrough of how one such application runs, built from the standard procedure rather than from any real case.

What Part 16 permits and what prior approval covers

Part 16 Class A grants permitted development rights to code operators for development required for the purposes of the electronic communications network, with a long list of conditions and limitations on height, ground area and location. Masts above the stated height limits, apparatus on listed buildings or in protected land, and installations in conservation areas, National Landscapes and National Parks are treated differently, with tighter limits or the right removed altogether.

Where the right applies and the apparatus is of a scale that triggers it, the operator must apply to the authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for the siting and appearance of the development. The council may approve, refuse approval, or say that approval is not required. Refusal has to be on siting or appearance grounds and reasoned.

The 56 day rule is the one that shapes the whole process. If the authority does not give the applicant notice of its determination within 56 days of receipt of the application, the development may proceed as applied for. Councils miss this deadline more often on Part 16 than on any other prior approval, usually because the application arrives in a form the registration team does not recognise.

The notification, the plans and the certificate

In the illustrative case, an operator proposed a 20 metre slim-line monopole with three antennas and two ground-based equipment cabinets on a grass verge at the edge of an industrial estate, replacing coverage lost when a rooftop site was redeveloped.

The submission contained a covering letter identifying the class relied on, a site location plan at 1:1250, a site layout plan at 1:200, elevations of the pole and cabinets, a declaration that the apparatus would comply with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection public exposure guidelines, evidence of notice served on the landowner, and a supporting statement on site selection.

That ICNIRP declaration matters procedurally. National policy is that local planning authorities should not question the health effects of an installation that is accompanied by a declaration of conformity with the guidelines. Objections about radiation are therefore recorded and not weighed. A Telecommunications Compliance document is where that declaration and the supporting technical position normally sit.

Site selection evidence and alternatives

The supporting statement set out the coverage gap, the search area generated from it, the sites considered within that area and the reason each was discounted. Two rooftops were unavailable because the owners declined, one alternative verge was rejected because of a buried services conflict, and a shared mast 400 metres away could not be raised without exceeding the structural capacity of the existing pole.

Site sharing and siting on an existing structure are the first options national policy expects operators to test. An application that does not show that work has been done invites a refusal on siting, because the authority can reasonably say a less harmful location exists.

The statement also dealt with the alternative of a shorter pole. Height is a coverage variable, and an operator that wants 20 metres should explain why 15 does not work. Where a landscape or townscape sensitivity is in play, a short visual appraisal with two or three photomontages does more than several pages of prose, and on a sensitive site an assessment akin to a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment may be proportionate.

Siting and appearance are the only two matters

The case officer's report in this sort of case usually runs to three or four pages. It describes the site, identifies the two matters in play, and works through them.

On siting, the officer considered the distance to the nearest residential property, the relationship to the highway visibility splay, whether the pole would obstruct a footway, the presence of trees and whether the cabinets would sit forward of the established building line. On appearance, the officer considered the colour and finish of the pole, the profile of the antenna shroud, the size and cladding of the cabinets and whether screen planting could reduce their prominence at close range.

That is the whole of it. Loss of view is not a matter. Neither is the number of operators already present, nor the effect on a mobile signal for a competing network.

Objections received and which were relevant

Say 31 representations arrived in the illustrative case. Most raised health, several raised property values, a handful raised the visual effect from the footpath opposite, and two raised a genuine siting point about pedestrian width on the verge.

The officer reported all of them, which is correct practice, and then explained which could be taken into account. Health and property values could not. The visual effect from the footpath and the pedestrian width could, because both go to siting and appearance. Objectors who understand that distinction write far more effective letters, and the wider guidance on material planning considerations and how to object shows the same principle in a different context.

The parish council asked for the pole to be moved 30 metres north to sit against a treeline. The operator agreed. That is the normal way a Part 16 case resolves, because the operator would rather move than lose the 56 day clock.

The 56 day period and what happened at the end of it

The application was registered on a Monday. Consultation ran for 21 days with a site notice, the officer report was signed under delegated powers in week six, and the decision notice issued on day 48 granting prior approval for the relocated pole.

Had the authority not determined it in time, the operator could have built the pole as originally applied for, including on the original verge position. That asymmetry is the reason experienced officers diary Part 16 applications on the day they arrive. And it is the reason an objector who wants to influence the outcome has to write within the first three weeks, not the last.

Conditions, landscaping and removal

Prior approval decisions can carry conditions relating to siting and appearance. In this illustrative case the authority imposed three: the pole and antenna shroud to be finished in a stated grey, a landscaping scheme for the cabinet enclosure to be submitted and implemented in the first planting season, and the apparatus to be removed and the land reinstated within a stated period after it ceases to be required for electronic communications purposes.

That last condition reflects a standing condition in Part 16 itself, which requires apparatus to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer needed, and the land restored to its previous condition. Enforcement of it is rare, and the condition is worth asking for anyway.

If you want to see which supporting documents an installation like this would attract on a more sensitive site, the full index of report types sets out what each one covers.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.