The Forum will respond to the consultation and we urge members to send to chair@londonforum.org.uk any comments or suggestions on points London Forum ought to make by 26 June 2026.

There are four questions in the main part of the consultation to which responses can be submitted by societies, which we urge you to do, through the online survey or by emailing responses to the questions to hvcts@communities.gov.uk

There are more questions on a payment deferral scheme, on exemptions and discounts, on a non-resident premium, on challenges and appeals and on enforcement.

Existing Council Tax bills on property occupiers will be charged alongside the new HVCTS.

The Valuation Office (VO), part of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), will conduct a valuation exercise to identify properties in one of four bands with the following charges

Revenue raised by the HVCTS from April 2028 (collected by Local Authorities who will be reimbursed for the cost), will go the Treasury and used to “support funding for local government services”, in a way the Treasury decides.

As Bromley consults on its local plan this summer, the public is urged to use the GLA project as a benchmark. Because councils are legally required to address climate change, members might reasonably push Bromley to align its plan with national standards.

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, Chair Mortlake and East Sheen Society

The development was initially approved to include 45% affordable housing but subsequent applications expanded the number of flats and reduced commitment to affordable housing.

We naturally chose AI – in the form of Claude.ai – to generate the 1200 word report on the event page, alongside the two videos, and slides, with clickable links allowing you to explore the references mentioned, including the original AI ‘chats’. For comparison, we used both Claude and Google’s Gemini for shorter 300 word summaries below.  In this case Gemini made a bullet-point style summary as you can see, but Claude extracted perhaps a little more detail. Do we need a tool to merge the best of both ? It turns out that there are several tools already available to at least automate side-by-side comparisons.

Claude 300 word summary

AI: A Powerful New Tool for Civic Societies

Richard gave an illustrated introduction to AI, explaining how today’s large language models work and demonstrating their capabilities live. He showed how AI tools can summarise vast planning documents in seconds — a boon for societies grappling with complex applications running to hundreds of files — and introduced specialist tools including Objector.ai, which analyses planning legislation to assess whether there are grounds for objection, and Anti-Render, which produces more realistic versions of developers’ glossy CGI images. He also demonstrated how AI can help check whether images used on websites may infringe copyright.

Richard flagged some important cautions too: AI chatbots can generate plausible but inaccurate information, automated bots are already trawling civic society websites for copyright infringements, and the longer-term societal implications of AI — from job displacement to autonomous weapons — deserve serious attention.

John Myers took a more hands-on approach, taking questions and demonstrating AI tools in real time. He showed how an LLM can quickly locate planning policies, draft consultation responses, and synthesise multiple documents — tasks that would previously have taken hours. A member, Sophie, described how she had built a complete website for a residents’ association using Claude, with no coding background, at minimal cost — a practical example that impressed the room.

Key practical tips from the evening: always give AI as much context as possible about your organisation and local situation; ask the AI to plan before it acts; and always check what it produces before publishing or submitting. On data security, members were advised to avoid uploading personal information and to delete audio recordings and transcripts once minutes have been generated.

The message was clear: AI is already a powerful tool for civic advocacy, and societies that learn to use it well will be better placed to make their voice heard.

Gemini 300 word summary

Empowering Civic Societies with AI

The session highlighted that AI’s greatest strength for societies is in making summaries. Whether dealing with a 119-condition planning application or a dense 800-page developer report, AI tools like Claude and Gemini can extract key issues in seconds, allowing volunteers to focus on strategy rather than “turgid” reading.

Beyond text, the meeting showcased how AI can:

• Defend against copyright claims: By using reverse image searches like TinEye to avoid “trap” images on websites.

• Bridge the volunteer gap: One member shared how she built a complete, professional website for her residents’ association using AI, despite having no coding background.

• Draft Consultations: AI can take a society’s core principles and draft a formal response to government consultations, such as those on planning fees or public house protections.

A Human-Led Future

The speakers emphasised that while AI is an “intergalactic autocomplete,” it lacks a “soul” and local knowledge. The consensus was clear: civic societies should not fear the technology but should use it to level the playing field against well-resourced developers. As John Myers noted, the goal is to “equip ourselves to fight the battle” by combining human passion with machine efficiency.

Members are encouraged to experiment with free versions of these tools but to remain vigilant regarding security—always ensuring that personal data is never uploaded and transcripts of private meetings are deleted once minutes are finalised.

He said “In total, £6 bn is being given to new Neighbourhood Boards, made up of local people, to spend on whatever the local community believes it needs. Over the coming weeks I will outline a radical new approach to community power, and how we will help people take back control over the decisions that affect their family, their community and their hometown.”

The speech explains the problems that are to be solved.

The FTT ruled that a Neighbourhood Forum is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).

In a blog, James Maurici KC explains the Tribunal’s reasoning and the implications for neighbourhood planning groups which will be obliged to make available any environmental information they have.