Telecommunications Masts

Prior approval, not full planning permission

Many mobile phone masts are installed under permitted development rights through a “prior approval” process rather than a full planning application — the operator only has to seek the council’s approval of specific matters, chiefly siting and appearance, not permission for the mast in principle. This matters because it narrows what you can actually object to: the mast’s need and general principle typically can’t be challenged this way, only its detailed siting and appearance, and sometimes not even that below a certain height or type threshold.

What you can actually object to

• The specific siting and appearance of the mast and equipment cabinet, where prior approval genuinely covers this
• Visual impact on a sensitive location — a conservation area, listed building setting, or protected landscape — if the mast falls under full permission rather than permitted development
• Highway safety or visibility impacts if sited near a junction or footway

What you generally can’t object to

Where a telecommunications proposal demonstrates compliance with recognised public exposure standards, health concerns are generally not treated as a planning reason for refusal. This is a common, understandable objection point, but it’s one of the hardest to succeed on in practice once compliance with those standards has been demonstrated.

What strengthens this objection

• Checking whether the specific application is prior approval or full planning permission, since this changes what’s actually up for consideration
• Focusing on siting and appearance, and any protected designation genuinely affected
• Raising highway visibility concerns with reference to a specific junction or sightline

Where it tends to fail

Objections based on health effects of radio-frequency emissions, which planning decisions aren’t the mechanism to address, however genuinely held the concern.

A worked example of a weak objection versus a strong one

Weak: “We don’t want a 5G mast near our house, it’s not safe.”

Strong: “The proposed mast site sits within the conservation area, directly opposite a group of listed cottages. The appraisal identifies the open verge at this location as contributing to the area’s rural character — the proposed structure and equipment cabinet would be a prominent, uncharacteristic addition to this specific view.”

Common mistakes to avoid

• Leading with health or radiation concerns, which carry no planning weight
• Not checking whether the application is prior approval (narrower scope) or full permission (broader scope)
• Missing a genuine, describable siting or appearance point in favour of a general objection to masts in principle