Planning for Telecoms Masts

Most of us now carry smart phones around with us all the time: they have become an essential part of modern life. For most of the time when we are out and about, using our phones depends on signals from telecoms masts. Since the first dozen masts were erected by Vodafone in 1985 to cover London and the M4 corridor, they have become ubiquitous across the country. In London alone there are estimated to be some 7,000 of the monopole masts we see on streets and the tops of buildings.

This article provides an account of how the legislation relating to telecoms masts has evolved over the past four decades. It also presents a case study from East Sheen in the borough of Richmond upon Thames, which highlights some of the issues we currently face. It would be useful if our member societies could provide information about their experiences in their respective boroughs, so that we can get a view of how applications are handled across London.

The 1990s and the introduction of Permitted Development Rights

When masts first started to appear, they required a full planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, allowing local planning authorities (LPAs) to prevent the erection of masts in inappropriate locations or where they had an adverse visual impact. But in 1995, the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) brought a huge increase in what were termed ‘Permitted Development Rights’(PDRs). It created a dual-track system under which instead of full applications, telecoms operators could use a “prior approval” process for masts of under 15 metres tall, and LPAs could comment only on their siting and appearance. But full planning permission was required for masts over 15 metres tall or those in sensitive areas such as National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), and Conservation Areas.

This regime remained relatively stable for over 15 years, with the rapid development of the 2G and 3G networks. The only significant change came as a result of concerns about the health effects of radiation from the masts. In 2000, the Stewart Report recommended a precautionary principle for the development of the mobile phone network. It included, even before the introduction of smart phones and widespread use of social media, a recommendation that children should not use mobile phones for anything other than essential purposes. It also recommended that all telecoms masts be subject to planning control regardless of size. The Government did not accept that recommendation, but it introduced a Code of Best Practice that required operators to consult with schools and local communities before erecting masts.

The NPPF and the latest rule changes

In 2012 the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) introduced by the Coalition Government brought a profound shift in policy, with an explicit statement that LPAs should support the expansion of electronic communications networks. The NPPF also restricted councils’ ability to reject masts on health grounds provided that the equipment met international guidelines. Permitted development rights were expanded in 2016 to allow for masts up to 25 metres tall, or 20 metres in conservation areas and other protected areas. Prior approval was still needed for new masts, but not for changes to existing ones.

The most recent changes came in 2022, under the Johnson Government. They were designed to facilitate the rapid rollout of 5G, which requires a higher density of “small cell” antennae. Permitted development rights were expanded once more to cover masts up to 30 metres tall, or 25 metres in conservation and other protected areas; and the permitted width was increased from one metre to two, in order to allow for the size of 5G equipment; and further flexibility was allowed for masts on rooftops. Prior approval is still required for most masts.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that councils have adopted a range of usually unstated policies relating to full and prior-approval applications for telecoms masts. Success in restricting the erection of masts on sensitive sites and conservation areas seems to be patchy, as recent experience in East Sheen shows.

The most conspicuous eyesore in East Sheen, namely the aerial mast atop Parkway House, which looms above the South Circular Road (the photo here was taken from a residential backstreet), is about to be dismantled and the telecom providers are proposing to erect a replacement mast with similar paraphernalia of antennae atop another building nearby which is wedged between two Conservation Areas. The local community is alarmed because the proposal constitutes ‘permitted development’. The alternative is for the providers to find a site nearby for a ground- based monopole on the South Circular Road. Interestingly the Richmond Council has recently refused several applications for monopoles rising to 20m on the grounds of their dominance and visual intrusiveness but the GPDO was updated in 2022 to allow an increase in the height of permitted development from 15m (excluding antennae) to 25m within Conservation Areas and 30m outside. Alas, the Council has no time to impose any Article 4 direction which would enable it to control the location and design. We have to bite the bullet and accept a major change is about to hit our townscape not just here but London-wide. Or perhaps the Borough of Richmond is unique in this instance? We have no tall buildings on which to mount aerial masts offering a wide area of coverage. Our tallest buildings are still our church steeples.

A final thought. In the busiest parts of London, including parts of the City and Oxford Street, you don’t see any masts at all. 5G coverage is now provided by small boxes hidden in lampposts and bus shelters, or, less satisfactorily, by the ‘Inlink’ digital kiosks that disfigure so many high streets. Is there perhaps the chance that further technological advance will diminish the need for the masts that we see almost everywhere today?

Michael Jubb
Chair, London Forum
With many thanks to Tim Catchpole, Mortlake and East Sheen Society