Reforming planning rules to accelerate deployment of digital infrastructure

Question 1

Why we are consulting

Accepted Answer

The government is launching this call for evidence – led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) – to invite views on the merit of targeted reforms to the planning framework to enable quicker, lower-cost deployment of fixed and mobile digital infrastructure.

We are seeking evidence and views from stakeholders to inform decisions on whether, and how, to reform specific planning rules and update policy guidance so that digital infrastructure can be delivered more quickly, to help improve coverage nationwide, so that communities up and down the country can enjoy the benefits that connectivity can bring.

Call for evidence details

Issued: Thursday 18 December 2025
Respond by: 11:59 pm on Thursday 26 February 2026

Enquiries to:

Barrier Busting Taskforce
Digital Infrastructure Directorate
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
22 Whitehall, London
SW1A 2EG

Email: CfETelecomsPlanning@dsit.gov.uk

Call for evidence reference: Reforming planning rules for digital infrastructure

Audiences:

mobile and fixed network operators, neutral host providers and infrastructure providers
local planning authorities and professional bodies
landowners landlords and community groups
devolved administrations and regulators
heritage and environmental organisations
interested members of the public

Territorial extent:

England (policy proposals within Town and Country Planning legislation).

Views from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are welcome on interaction with devolved regimes.

How to respond to this call for evidence

Your response will be most useful if it is framed in direct response to the questions posed, though further comments and evidence are also welcome.

Submit your responses online here.

This call for evidence will run until 11:59 pm on Thursday 26 February 2026.  

When responding, please state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. 

In exceptional circumstances, if you need to submit a hard copy or require another format (e.g. braille or large font) please contact CfETelecomsPlanning@dsit.gov.uk.  

Confidentiality and data protection

Information you provide, including personal data, may be disclosed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. If you want the information you provide to be treated as confidential, please tell us, but be aware we cannot guarantee confidentiality in all circumstances. We will process your personal data in accordance with applicable data protection law. See DSIT’s personal information charter and MHCLG’s information charter.

In addition, this call for evidence is being led by DSIT and MHCLG and therefore responses may be held (and considered) by both departments.

This consultation is being run in accordance with the government’s consultation principles. If you have any complaints about the way this consultation has been conducted, please email: betterregulation@dsit.gov.uk.

Background

The government’s UK Infrastructure: A 10 Year Strategy sets out a long-term plan for economic, housing and social infrastructure to drive growth. Better infrastructure has a vital role to play in delivering all of government’s missions, creating and connecting people to good jobs, supporting new housing and neighbourhoods, ensuring people can depend on vital public services and providing resilience in response to a changing world.

As part of that, delivering high‑quality digital infrastructure is essential to the UK’s growth, productivity and the resilience of public services. For example, research commissioned by DSIT shows that 5G adoption across key sectors could unlock between £9–37 billion in additional Gross Value Added annually by 2035.^{[footnote 1]} Reliable fixed and mobile connectivity underpins innovation across sectors—from advanced manufacturing and logistics to health, emergency services and smart energy systems—and is now an expectation for many businesses and communities up and down the country.

It supports the adoption of new and emerging technologies including Artificial Intelligence (AI) and enables citizens to participate in modern life. In an increasingly online world, growth in data consumption and increased demands on the UK’s digital infrastructure mean there is an urgent need to support the sector in delivering greater connectivity for local communities and businesses. The government is committed to the rollout of gigabit-capable broadband and modern 5G networks, with the goal of enabling businesses, residents, and institutions to access seamless and reliable connectivity. These efforts are essential to building a more competitive, equitable, and digitally connected nation.

Alongside the government’s 10-year Infrastructure Strategy, The Industrial Strategy set out a bold vision to drive UK economic growth by capturing the most significant opportunities in sectors that will shape the future. Technology-led industries are expected to dominate this transformation, with emerging technologies projected to account for around half of GDP growth in the coming years.^{[footnote 2]} To position the UK as one of the top 3 global destinations for creating, investing in, and scaling technology businesses by 2035, we recognise that world-class digital infrastructure will remain a critical enabler of success.

Planning for telecoms infrastructure

In England, planning permission is required for any work that meets the statutory definition of ‘development’, as set out in Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This includes building operations, engineering operations (such as groundworks), and material changes in the use of land or buildings. A planning application is usually submitted to the relevant local planning authority who must determine the application in accordance with the development plan and any relevant material planning considerations.

Government can grant planning permission nationally for specific types of development through permitted development rights, which are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (SI 2015/596), commonly referred to as the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). Electronic communications code operators (“code operators”) benefit from permitted development rights under Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, which enables them to install, alter, or replace telecommunications equipment without needing specific planning permission. These rights allow certain types of development to proceed without needing to submit a full planning application and subject to complying with all relevant conditions, limitations, and restrictions. In some cases, developers must notify or seek prior approval from the local planning authority:

1. Permitted development with prior approval needed – some permitted development rights are subject to a requirement that the developer seek the prior approval of the local planning authority before the development can commence. The local planning authority can only consider specified matters when determining a prior approval application (e.g. in relation to the siting and/or appearance of the development). Local planning authorities have a time-limited opportunity, usually 56 days, to consider the specified matters and make a decision. This involves a requirement for public engagement through site visits or written notices to allow representations from local residents, and the views of statutory consultees. The prior approval process gives the local planning authority the opportunity to refuse the development and, should there be no refusal, the developer may proceed after 56 days. The requirements relating to prior approval are much less prescriptive than those relating to planning applications, as prior approval is a lighter-touch process which applies where the principle of the development has already been established; and

2. Permitted development with the requirement to notify – some permitted development rights require that the developer notifies the local planning authority of their intention to use the right, but do not require prior approval. In these cases, the developer is required to submit a notification so that the local planning authority can check that the proposal is permitted development and, if necessary, notify direct neighbours. The developer can proceed after giving the local planning authority one calendar month’s notice.

Code operators are defined by the Electronic Communications Code^{[footnote 3]}. Chapter 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework - GOV.UK sets out the government’s current planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied for both plan-making and decision-making. The government is currently consulting on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which includes policies on electronic communications. The consultation on changes to the NPPF is available here: National Planning Policy Framework: proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system and will remain open for responses until 10 March 2026.

Since 2019, the government has consulted on and implemented targeted planning reforms to support mobile connectivity and 5G, alongside delivering on initiatives such as the Shared Rural Network and Project Gigabit. Those reforms recognised that newer 5G and full fibre networks require a different physical footprint: more capacity upgrades on existing sites, additional small cell systems, better rooftop solutions in urban areas, and timely delivery of backhaul and exchange facilities.

In 2022, permitted development rights were expanded for electronic communications^{[footnote 4]} and made the changes to Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO to enable:

the deployment of radio equipment housing
strengthening existing ground-based masts
the deployment of rooftop masts closer to the highway
the deployment of new ground-based masts
an update to the definition of ‘small cell systems’ and strengthening the ‘safeguarding procedure’ for aerodromes, technical sites and defence assets

In parallel with the changes to permitted development rights, government also updated the Code of practice for wireless network development in England (‘the Code of Practice’) providing guidance to Code Operators, including the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and wireless infrastructure providers, their agents and contractors, local planning authorities, and all other relevant stakeholders in England on how to carry out their roles and responsibilities when installing wireless network infrastructure. It is also a useful tool for other interested stakeholders such as community groups, amenity bodies and individuals with an interest in mobile connectivity. We remain mindful of the visual impact that the deployment of digital infrastructure can have on local communities and surrounding areas.

Call for evidence rationale

The consideration of this call for evidence is to build on that approach by addressing specific, evidenced barriers, that may exist in the planning system, to infrastructure deployment where otherwise low‑impact upgrades or new equipment deployment potentially face avoidable delay and cost.

The upgrade to 5G Standalone (5GSA) on the UK’s network increases demand for capacity at busy locations and requires greater network densification in towns and cities. 5GSA is the full, end-to-end, 5G network that delivers low‑latency and high‑capacity connectivity for public use, businesses and critical services. It enables advanced applications — from safer transport and modern manufacturing to responsive public services — and will increasingly carry everyday voice and data. As usage grows (including data‑intensive AI applications), networks must add capacity in busy places and maintain resilience during site changes, and the deployment of 5G Standalone is critical to this.

In order to deliver and upgrade to 5GSA, operators typically need to modernise existing sites by adding or replacing antennas, installing new, expanding cabinet space for new radios and power systems, and in many cases deploying additional small cells or taller monopoles to achieve the densification and coverage required for low-latency, high-capacity services. These upgrades often involve rooftop works in urban areas and new backhaul connections.

In addition, we have seen an increase in the deployment and use of small cell systems on street furniture and buildings to further relieve 5G congestion, and we are seeking views on expanding the current size limits set out in legislation. Finally, it is essential to ensure that fibre backhaul is available, which includes deploying compact fibre exchange facilities. Planning processes that are proportionate to these forms of development can materially shorten build times and bring forward the benefits of better connectivity.

Time spent navigating planning requirements and securing approvals could add time and cost to deployment, delaying the rollout and upgrading of mobile and fixed networks and the infrastructure needed to deliver 5GSA’s benefits for businesses, public services and consumers. Planning application statistics suggests that the vast majority of prior approval applications submitted under permitted development rights (across all sectors) are approved.^{[footnote 5]} However, applications for telecoms infrastructure make up a small proportion of total applications and are not separately identified, therefore it is not possible to draw conclusions from these statistics, and we hope to collect relevant information with this call for evidence. Industry reports a significant proportion of prior‑approval applications are refused. Initial industry views suggest that where network operators are refused planning permission they often appeal the planning decision and a large share of appeals get overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. The process for appealing a planning decision can extend deployments by up to a year and add material cost. Industry states that if permitted development rights were changed to prior notification instead of prior approval, it would improve the speed of deployment.

We have identified several areas where we seek additional evidence and information to determine whether further reforms to planning rules are necessary to support the government’s nationwide coverage ambitions. These policy areas include:

temporary redeployment after a Notice-to-Quit (NTQ)
expanding permitted development rights for larger rooftop infrastructure on protected land
expanding permitted development rights for ground-based masts
bringing fibre-exchanges into permitted development
small cell systems and lifting restrictions on size
updating the Wireless Code of Practice
new build connectivity – mobile
rail connectivity
assessing the impact of previous planning reforms

We welcome evidence—quantitative and qualitative—on the scale of benefits, the adequacy of safeguards, and any additional steps that would make the system work better for communities and for the deployment of digital infrastructure. In considering these reforms, the government will ensure that changes to planning rules maintain robust safeguards for national security. This includes protecting defence assets and critical national infrastructure, and ensuring that accelerated deployment does not compromise security requirements. We welcome evidence on how planning processes can balance faster rollout with these essential security considerations.

Temporary redeployment after a Notice‑to‑Quit (NTQ)

When landowners request equipment to be removed or relocated, operators often require a temporary site while a permanent replacement is identified and secured to ensure that local communities continue to be served with connectivity. Industry reports that that Notices‑to‑Quit (NTQs) are an increasing barrier to maintaining existing mobile coverage in local areas. Operators report that the current emergency right as set out in the Order — which allows temporary, moveable apparatus for up to 18 months — is often too short to secure the necessary wayleave agreements and planning permission for permanent replacements.

Industry reports this has resulted in a sizeable number of temporary sites ultimately being lost when the window expired before the permanent site was live.

We continue to consider possible remedies to the challenges highlighted by the sector, including an option to extend the emergency period as set out in the Order from 18 to 36 months. Stakeholders are invited to comment on the proportionality and potential unintended effects of each change (including any safeguards for heritage and amenity), the likely impact on Planning Inspectorate and any alternative, non‑legislative interventions (e.g., LPA practice guidance, that could deliver similar or better outcomes for NTQ continuity.

Extending the permitted period could better protect users who depend on nearby infrastructure for their connectivity while keeping temporary impacts proportionate. We invite views on whether the 18‑month period is adequate for NTQ scenarios, how far refusals and appeal timelines are driving avoidable coverage loss, and whether the challenges are disproportionately concentrated in dense urban areas compared with rural contexts. We welcome evidence that corroborates or challenges these figures (including alternative methodologies, local case studies, and distributional impacts on vulnerable users), and views on additional indicators the government should consider for NTQ impact appraisal (e.g., emergency‑service resilience, business continuity, and social‑inclusion metrics).

Questions (1 to 4)

We are seeking views on extending the permitted period for temporary relocation of apparatus following a landowner NTQ. The current limit for emergency use is 18 months as set out in the GPDO.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 1: How appropriate is the current limit of 18 months for the emergency period to temporarily deploy infrastructure without planning permission?

Multiple choice answers:

It’s too short
It’s of an appropriate length
It’s too long
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 1a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of 18-month the limit for you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents or any other effects).

Question 2: What would be the most appropriate limit for the emergency period?

Multiple choice answers:

18 months (current limit)
24 months
36 months
Other, please explain
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 2a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of retaining or changing the current limit for you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 3: How do you think extending the 18-month limit would affect each of the following?

Separate open text box on:

Coverage and restoration of coverage following site loss
Amenity
Noise
Local authority workload
Is there anything else you think would be affected if the limit is extended?

Question 4: Please describe any safeguards or conditions you believe should be applied to any extension of the limit and explain why you think they are important.

Larger rooftop infrastructure on protected land and unprotected land

Some sector operators have suggested that, in areas that are predominately rural, the current limit of 3 antennae per rooftop mast on protected land^{[footnote 6]} has limited improvements in wireless capacity. Increasing the rooftop antenna limit on protected land from 3 to 6 could serve to help deliver better connectivity to rural communities.

Industry report that that the current rules for Article 2(3) land (also known as “protected land”) can slow down the installation of rooftop equipment needed to maintain and upgrade mobile networks. At the moment, some rooftop antennas are allowed without the need to submit a planning application if they meet limits: for example, dish antennas under 0.6 metres or other antennas under 3 metres high and no more than 3 rooftop antennas. In practice, the supporting structures often fall outside these limits, meaning developers must go through a prior-approval process or submit a full planning application, which adds time and cost.

In addition, we understand that contemporary rooftop upgrades in protected land frequently involve co‑siting 4G and 5G equipment and that 3 antenna allowances can struggle to match operational need in capacity hotspots. Industry has indicated that clearer permitted development rights for rooftop infrastructure could improve outcomes significantly, increase antennae redeployment and save time spent in the planning system by moving more cases from 56‑day prior‑approval routes to 28‑day notifications—thereby accelerating service continuity and upgrades on protected land.

Current regulations mean rooftop masts can only reach a maximum of 6 metres above the highest part of the building. Some operators have suggested increasing this limit to 8 metres to accommodate the higher radio frequencies required for 5GSA, which often necessitate taller apparatus. We invite public views and evidence on whether there is merit in making this change.

Questions (5 to 8)

We are seeking views and evidence on expanding permitted developments rights to allow additional rooftop apparatus in protected land including moving certain developments from prior approval to prior notification and increasing the current allowance of 3 antennas where appropriate.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 5: How do the current rules requiring a prior-approval process or a full planning application for larger rooftop infrastructure affect you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects)?

Question 5a: Should specified rooftop apparatus on protected land that can currently be deployed under prior approval move to prior notification?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 5b: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of the move from prior approval to prior notification for you or your organisation (for example in terms of costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 6: What do you think is an appropriate limit on the number of antennas per rooftop mast on protected land?

Multiple choice:

3 (current limit)
4
5
6
Other, please specify
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 6a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of retaining or changing the current limit for you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 6b: If the current limit of 3 antennas was to be increased in protected areas, what design or heritage safeguards do you believe should be in place?

Question 7: What evidence is there on coverage benefits and visual impacts in protected areas?

Question 7a: Should the current maximum height limit for rooftop masts (6m above the highest part of the building) be increased to 8m to accommodate new technologies such as 5G?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 7b: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of increasing the height limit for you or your organisation (for example in terms of coverage benefits, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 7c: If the height limit was increased, what design or heritage safeguards do you believe should be in place?

Question 8: Are there other barriers to the deployment of digital infrastructure on rooftops on unprotected land, noting the current restriction of 6m in height for rooftop masts?

Ground‑based monopoles in non‑designated land

Increasing mobile infrastructure capacity, especially with the increasing deployment of 5G standalone, is essential. This is especially true as new and emerging technologies, such as AI, require additional network capacity. Permitting taller monopoles, up to 20 metres, under Prior Notification could support local connectivity and speed up delivery of 5G capacity and coverage of 5G standalone.

Industry suggests that allowing slim ground‑based monopoles up to 20 metres as permitted development without prior approval on non‑designated land would materially accelerate rollout and improve continuity of service.

We invite views on the proportionality of a 20 metres permitted development threshold, whether current A.2(1) conditions and Code notifications are sufficient, and what—if any—additional conditions (e.g., design requirements, siting criteria near schools or heritage assets, micro‑siting tolerances) would be necessary to ensure good outcomes.

We understand that increasing mast height from 15 metres to 20 metres can help wireless broadcast signals travel more effectively over obstacles like trees and nearby buildings. It also allows more space for multiple operators to share the same structure and, in some cases, can reduce the overall number of masts needed by increasing each site’s coverage area. We would welcome evidence on whether 20 metres offers the best balance between meeting network needs and reducing the number of sites through sharing.

Industry has suggested that permitting 20 metres monopoles would result in a rise in masts deployed and increase the rate of deployment by reducing the window of time required to obtain a determination. These gains could support the deployment of 5G standalone, particularly in suburban and urban areas where rooftops are less available.

In addition, current rules permit ground-based masts to be deployed on unprotected land with a maximum of 25 metres height, and 20 metres in protected areas or highway land. We would like to use this call for evidence to understand if increasing these height parameters would support greater coverage of 5GSA and unlock additional investment into digital infrastructure, in particular in relation to network upgrades on existing apparatus.

Questions (9 to 12)

We are seeking views on allowing ground-based monopoles up to 20m as permitted development in non-designated areas subject to prior notification (not prior approval) as-well-as inviting views on whether existing height restrictions on other types of ground-based masts should be changed.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 9: How do the current rules requiring a prior-approval process to deploy a monopole up to 20 metres affect you or your organisation (for example in terms of costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects)?

Question 9a: Should monopoles up to 20 metres be allowed in unprotected areas under prior notification?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 9b: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of this change for you or your organisation (for example in terms of costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 9c: If 20 metres monopoles were allowed under prior notification, what would be the effect on areas with local wireless capacity issues?

Question 10: Should the existing height limit for ground-based masts (excluding monopoles) in unprotected areas be increased from 25 metres to 30 metres, changing the approval process from prior approval to prior notification?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 10a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of this change for you or your organisation (for example in terms of costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 10b: If the height limit was increased, what would be the effect on local coverage and the timescale of the network upgrades required for 5GSA?

Question 11: Should the existing height limit for ground-based masts (excluding monopoles) in protected areas and on highway land be increased from 20 metres to 25 metres allowed under prior approval?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 11a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of this change for you or your organization (for example in terms of costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 11b: If the height limit was increased, what would be the effect on local coverage and the timescale of the network upgrades required for 5GSA?

Question 12: If government proceeds with any of the proposed changes outlined in the previous questions, what specific mitigations should be required to manage impacts on visual amenity, heritage and environmental sensitivities?

Small cell systems and restrictions on size

Some industry operators have claimed that definitions and size parameters of small cells have not kept pace with multi‑operator equipment and newer, typically larger, 5G radios across different mobile network operators.

We understand that shared small‑cell infrastructure provides an important layer of coverage that can deliver capacity in streets and settlements where rooftop options are limited. However, the current mix of definitions (small antennas versus small‑cell systems) and measurement rules can push otherwise modest, multi‑operator solutions into full planning on drafting technicalities.

Under the current rules in Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO, a “small cell system” is defined as a low‑power wireless network access equipment operating within a small range (irrespective of whether the underlying network type is a mobile or fixed line network). It must not be too powerful or too large. The signal strength is limited to 10 watts, and the main unit must not exceed 50 litres. When measuring size, the power supply and casing are included, but excludes any mounting, fixing, bracket or other support structure.

Some operators have also indicated that one unit can serve several mobile operators at the same time. Although the system can be set up to send out more power, up to 100 watts, in practice it is limited to an average of 10 watts over 6 minutes. They argue this restriction can make it harder to provide strong and reliable service when multiple operators share the same unit.

They propose regulating small cells by dimension only, removing broadcast‑technology references, explicitly including associated items such as meter cabinets and pillars within the system definition, and enlarging the size parameters so that a single unit can lawfully host all 4 MNOs.

Questions (13 to 15)

We are seeking views on updating size parameters and definitions for small cell systems so that equipment can support multiple operators and newer 5G equipment within clear, consistent limits. We are interested in proposals to align the treatment of “small antennas” and “small cell systems” and in evidence on visual and street clutter impacts.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 13: To what extent, if at all, do restrictions on small cells affect you or your organisation? Please provide details of this (for example, in terms of deployment timelines, costs, hosting operator equipment etc.)

Question 14: What changes to small cell systems’ definitions and or size limits would support multi-operator equipment and 5G while helping to manage and minimise street clutter?

Question 15: What conditions or limitations do you believe would be proportionate in this context? Please describe any conditions or limitations (for example on mounting locations, cabling, power, maintenance access) and explain why they would be proportionate.

Review of Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO to clarify and simplify rules

Owing to the numerous amendments made to Part 16 over recent years, some telecoms operators have suggested that the current regulatory framework under Part 16 leads to inconsistency in interpretation and application of permitted development rules. Reforming Part 16 could streamline processes, reduce unnecessary appeals, and deliver a more predictable environment for investment and deployment.

Looking ahead, industry anticipates significant upgrades and new site installations over the next 5 years. Without reform, the current framework could risk prolonging delays and inefficiencies, potentially hindering the UK’s ability to achieve its connectivity ambitions. We are therefore seeking evidence on whether a comprehensive review of Part 16 would be beneficial, with the aim of delivering clearer guidance, ensuring consistent application, and aligning the regulations with modern 5G infrastructure requirements—ultimately supporting faster rollout and better coverage for communities. In particular, we would welcome insights from local planning officers with direct experience of assessing applications from digital infrastructure providers.

Questions (16 to 19)

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 16: How clear are the current Part 16 rules?

Very clear
Clear
Neither clear nor unclear
Unclear
Very unclear
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 16a: Please provide evidence for your answer.

Question 17: How consistently are the Part 16 rules applied and/or interpreted across local authorities in England?

Multiple choice:

Completely consistent
Mostly consistent
Somewhat inconsistent
Very inconsistent
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 17a: Please provide evidence for your answer.

Question 17b: If you feel the current rules are not applied consistently, how does this affect you or your organisation (for example, in terms of the outcome of planning applications)?

Question 17c: Please describe how previous legislative changes to Part 16 have affected you or your organisation’s ability to interpret or implement the rules. Please provide examples of challenges, delays or any other impacts on you or your organisation.

Question 18: Do you think a full review of the Part 16 rules would help improve their clarity?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 18a: Please provide evidence for your answer.

Question 18b: Beyond those referenced elsewhere, which targeted reforms to Part 16 would provide greater clarity to local planning officers?

Question 19: Do you think a full review of Part 16 would support 5G standalone rollout?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 19a: Please provide evidence for your answer.

Fibre exchanges

Some operators have suggested that obtaining permission for fibre exchange, purpose-built hubs where fibre-optic cables from local networks converge and connect to the core network, enabling high-speed broadband services, can add months to deployment schedules. Bringing fibre exchange structures, a purpose-built hub where fibre-optic cables from local access networks converge and connect to the core network, into permitted development (with conditions for design, noise, access and flood risk) would potentially unlock backhaul earlier and make last‑mile upgrades viable. Industry provided information suggests that significant challenges in securing planning approval for fibre exchange (FEx) sites. A key issue is inconsistency between planning authorities regarding required supporting documentation, which leads to delays and additional costs. While some variation is expected due to site differences, the lack of clarity and occasional refusal pose risks to deployment timelines. The government is consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to encourage a more consistent and proportionate approach to local information requirements (which are set out in local validation lists).

Questions (20 to 23)

We seek views on moving fibre exchange structures into permitted development subject to conditions. We invite evidence on typical footprints, siting considerations, cumulative impacts and any safeguards that may be required.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 20: How do the current rules regarding FEx sites affect you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, or any other effects)?

Question 21: Do you think certain fibre exchange structures should be allowed as permitted development?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 21a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of this change for you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects)

Question 22: If you think they should be allowed, what dimensional thresholds or conditions would be appropriate?

Question 23: What are the key planning considerations for local authorities when determining planning applications for FEx sites (for example noise, transport, flood risk, design)? For each consideration, please also suggest how it could be addressed.

Updating the Wireless Code of Practice

The Code of Practice provides guidance to Code Operators (referred to as ‘operators’ throughout the Code of Practice), including the Mobile Network Operators and wireless infrastructure providers, their agents and contractors, local planning authorities, and all other relevant stakeholders in England on how to carry out their roles and responsibilities when installing wireless network infrastructure. It is also a useful tool for other interested stakeholders such as community groups, amenity bodies and individuals with an interest in mobile connectivity. The Code Of practice was developed in collaboration with representatives of the mobile network industry, other government departments and public bodies, local planning authorities, and protected landscapes

The aim of the Wireless Code of Practice is to support the government’s objective of delivering high quality wireless infrastructure nationwide whilst balancing these needs with environmental considerations. It also has an important role in making sure that appropriate engagement takes place with local communities and other interested parties. Recent feedback from operators and local authorities suggests that updating the Code of Practice could be beneficial, in particular to reflect the latest developments in 5G standalone.

In addition, The Code of Practice encourages operators to minimise the visual impact of new network development on surrounding areas, particularly in sensitive locations, and sets out how this should be achieved in line with planning conditions in legislation. In addition, operators are also encouraged to share sites and equipment where possible. Through the Code of Practice, the mobile network operators have committed to site sharing wherever viable.

The Code of Practice states that government should convene a working group every 6 months to review the guidance. However, we have not seen clear evidence to date that this would add value. We would welcome views on whether convening such a group would be beneficial, and what the appropriate frequency of meetings should be.

Questions (24 to 27)

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 24: How effective is the current Code of Practice in providing sufficient guidance for deploying network infrastructure?

Multiple choice:

Very effective
Effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Ineffective
Very ineffective
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 24a: Please explain the reason for your answer and include any evidence, examples or recent experiences that support your view.

Question 25: Where the current Code is ineffective, what impact does it have on you/your organisation?

Question 26: In what areas could the Code of Practice be updated to reflect the latest developments in network rollout? Please provide specific examples and reasons.

Question 27: Do you think it would be beneficial for the government to convene a working group to review the guidance.

No
Yes, on an ad hoc basis
Yes, every 6 months
Yes, every year
Yes, every 2 years
Other, please specify
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

New build connectivity -mobile

Some sector operators have suggested that there a recurring gap in planning: major housing and mixed‑use schemes are often progressed without systematic engagement with mobile operators. This has led to instances where completed developments have inadequate outdoor mobile coverage; operators are then forced into street‑works monopoles near new homes, which can prompt resident objections on visual impact, cabinet noise and (where used) generator fumes, and sometimes creating conflict where pre‑existing telecoms sites are placed at odds with the consented layout.

Some mobile operators have said that that early, structured engagement will improve certainty for developers and residents and deliver better, shared solutions that meet rising capacity demand as new housing is occupied.

Questions (28 to 30)

We seek views on encouraging developers to consider mobile coverage and digital connectivity from the outset of design for new developments, including practical routes to engage operators early. We are not proposing a statutory duty.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 28: To what extent, if at all, does the current engagement between mobile operators and developers affect you or your organisation? Please provide details of the ways in which this affects you or your organisation and include any examples or evidence.

Question 29: What practical mechanisms would best encourage early engagement between developers and operators? Please explain the reason for your answer and include any examples or evidence.

Question 30: What non-statutory levers (e.g. guidance) would be most effective in encouraging developed to plan for mobile coverage from the outset of development? Please explain the reason for your answer and include any examples or evidence.

Rail connectivity

Coverage on the rail network remains patchy and often unreliable for passengers; railway lines often run through cuttings and pass through tunnels so that signals from masts placed outside of the rail corridor cannot reach the trains. Trackside infrastructure can provide a consistent signal, but this is complicated to deploy, as suggested by stakeholders raising issues around the challenges of deploying digital infrastructure along rail corridors.

In the 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy, the government committed to working with Ofcom, the telecommunications regulator, and other relevant regulators to assess the telecommunications network requirements of the transport, energy and water sectors by the end of 2026. The assessment of the transport sector will include both the operational and passenger requirements for the rail network. As part of this work, we would like to understand whether there are planning-related barriers to deployment of digital infrastructure which hinder the improvement of coverage along the rail network for both operational and passenger use, and if so, what they are.

Questions (31 to 33)

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 31: Do you consider existing planning legislation or guidance to be a barrier to deployment of digital infrastructure along the rail network? If so, please specify what exactly is a barrier.

Question 32: Where legislation or guidance is a barrier, what is the impact on you or your organisation? Please include any examples or evidence.

Question 33: What legislative or non-legislative changes could support Mobile Network Operators and Neutral Host Providers to deploy digital infrastructure for passenger connectivity on the rail network?

Assessing the impact of previous planning reforms

We are seeking views on the effectiveness of previous changes to planning regulations and associated frameworks, specifically the planning reforms introduced in 2016 and 2022. These changes aimed to streamline deployment processes for digital infrastructure, reduce costs, and accelerate network rollout timelines. Understanding their impact is essential to inform future policy decisions and ensure that planning rules continue to support investment and innovation in connectivity.

We welcome evidence on whether these reforms have delivered their intended benefits, including improvements to deployment speed, cost efficiency, and planning certainty. We are also interested in any unintended consequences or barriers that remain, particularly where planning reforms have not achieved the desired outcomes.

Questions (34 to 37)

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 34: What impacts have the previous 2016 and 2022 planning reforms had on deployment timelines, costs, and the planning system? Please provide evidence or examples where possible.

Question 35: How have these planning reforms affected certainty and administrative processes for operators and local authorities? Please describe any benefits or remaining challenges.

Question 36: Please share any supporting information for your response. This could include quantitative data, case studies, or examples that illustrate how these reforms have affected network rollout and upgrades.

Question 37: Are there specific areas where the planning reforms have been particularly effective or ineffective (e.g., rural vs urban deployment, mast upgrades, rooftop installations)?

Environmental impact and equalities considerations

We welcome evidence on economic, environmental, heritage and amenity impacts of the proposals, including cumulative effects.

We also welcome views on equalities impacts under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), including how proposals may affect different groups and rural/urban communities.

Devolution

Planning is a devolved matter in the United Kingdom and this call for evidence focuses on England. However, we would welcome and encourage views from stakeholders in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on interactions with their planning frameworks, and on any cross-border implications.

Next steps

Subject to the evidence received, we may consult on specific draft measures and bring forward secondary legislation where appropriate.

From Realising the benefits of 5G. Figures are in 2018 prices. ↩
The wider economic impacts of emerging technologies in the UK ↩
Paragraph 2, Part 1, Schedule 3A of the Communications Act 2003 ↩
Changes to permitted development rights for electronic communications infrastructure: government response to the technical consultation ↩
Table PDR 2: district planning authorities - applications for prior approvals for permitted developments, England. Planning applications for telecoms infrastructure are included in the ‘All others’ category. ↩
Under planning law, protected areas are designated under Article 2 (3) land under Part 1 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. Article 2(3) land is defined as land within an area designated as a conservation area under section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (designation of conservation areas); an area of outstanding natural beauty; an area specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 41(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (enhancement and protection of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside); the Broads; a National Park; and a World Heritage Site. ↩

Question 2

How to respond to this call for evidence

Accepted Answer

Your response will be most useful if it is framed in direct response to the questions posed, though further comments and evidence are also welcome.

Submit your responses online here.

This call for evidence will run until 11:59 pm on Thursday 26 February 2026.  

Question 3

Background

Accepted Answer

The government’s UK Infrastructure: A 10 Year Strategy sets out a long-term plan for economic, housing and social infrastructure to drive growth. Better infrastructure has a vital role to play in delivering all of government’s missions, creating and connecting people to good jobs, supporting new housing and neighbourhoods, ensuring people can depend on vital public services and providing resilience in response to a changing world.

As part of that, delivering high‑quality digital infrastructure is essential to the UK’s growth, productivity and the resilience of public services. For example, research commissioned by DSIT shows that 5G adoption across key sectors could unlock between £9–37 billion in additional Gross Value Added annually by 2035.^{[footnote 1]} Reliable fixed and mobile connectivity underpins innovation across sectors—from advanced manufacturing and logistics to health, emergency services and smart energy systems—and is now an expectation for many businesses and communities up and down the country.

It supports the adoption of new and emerging technologies including Artificial Intelligence (AI) and enables citizens to participate in modern life. In an increasingly online world, growth in data consumption and increased demands on the UK’s digital infrastructure mean there is an urgent need to support the sector in delivering greater connectivity for local communities and businesses. The government is committed to the rollout of gigabit-capable broadband and modern 5G networks, with the goal of enabling businesses, residents, and institutions to access seamless and reliable connectivity. These efforts are essential to building a more competitive, equitable, and digitally connected nation.

Alongside the government’s 10-year Infrastructure Strategy, The Industrial Strategy set out a bold vision to drive UK economic growth by capturing the most significant opportunities in sectors that will shape the future. Technology-led industries are expected to dominate this transformation, with emerging technologies projected to account for around half of GDP growth in the coming years.^{[footnote 2]} To position the UK as one of the top 3 global destinations for creating, investing in, and scaling technology businesses by 2035, we recognise that world-class digital infrastructure will remain a critical enabler of success.

Question 4

Planning for telecoms infrastructure

Accepted Answer

In England, planning permission is required for any work that meets the statutory definition of ‘development’, as set out in Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This includes building operations, engineering operations (such as groundworks), and material changes in the use of land or buildings. A planning application is usually submitted to the relevant local planning authority who must determine the application in accordance with the development plan and any relevant material planning considerations.

Government can grant planning permission nationally for specific types of development through permitted development rights, which are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (SI 2015/596), commonly referred to as the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). Electronic communications code operators (“code operators”) benefit from permitted development rights under Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, which enables them to install, alter, or replace telecommunications equipment without needing specific planning permission. These rights allow certain types of development to proceed without needing to submit a full planning application and subject to complying with all relevant conditions, limitations, and restrictions. In some cases, developers must notify or seek prior approval from the local planning authority:

1. Permitted development with prior approval needed – some permitted development rights are subject to a requirement that the developer seek the prior approval of the local planning authority before the development can commence. The local planning authority can only consider specified matters when determining a prior approval application (e.g. in relation to the siting and/or appearance of the development). Local planning authorities have a time-limited opportunity, usually 56 days, to consider the specified matters and make a decision. This involves a requirement for public engagement through site visits or written notices to allow representations from local residents, and the views of statutory consultees. The prior approval process gives the local planning authority the opportunity to refuse the development and, should there be no refusal, the developer may proceed after 56 days. The requirements relating to prior approval are much less prescriptive than those relating to planning applications, as prior approval is a lighter-touch process which applies where the principle of the development has already been established; and

2. Permitted development with the requirement to notify – some permitted development rights require that the developer notifies the local planning authority of their intention to use the right, but do not require prior approval. In these cases, the developer is required to submit a notification so that the local planning authority can check that the proposal is permitted development and, if necessary, notify direct neighbours. The developer can proceed after giving the local planning authority one calendar month’s notice.

Code operators are defined by the Electronic Communications Code^{[footnote 3]}. Chapter 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework - GOV.UK sets out the government’s current planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied for both plan-making and decision-making. The government is currently consulting on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which includes policies on electronic communications. The consultation on changes to the NPPF is available here: National Planning Policy Framework: proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system and will remain open for responses until 10 March 2026.

Since 2019, the government has consulted on and implemented targeted planning reforms to support mobile connectivity and 5G, alongside delivering on initiatives such as the Shared Rural Network and Project Gigabit. Those reforms recognised that newer 5G and full fibre networks require a different physical footprint: more capacity upgrades on existing sites, additional small cell systems, better rooftop solutions in urban areas, and timely delivery of backhaul and exchange facilities.

In 2022, permitted development rights were expanded for electronic communications^{[footnote 4]} and made the changes to Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO to enable:

the deployment of radio equipment housing
strengthening existing ground-based masts
the deployment of rooftop masts closer to the highway
the deployment of new ground-based masts
an update to the definition of ‘small cell systems’ and strengthening the ‘safeguarding procedure’ for aerodromes, technical sites and defence assets

In parallel with the changes to permitted development rights, government also updated the Code of practice for wireless network development in England (‘the Code of Practice’) providing guidance to Code Operators, including the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and wireless infrastructure providers, their agents and contractors, local planning authorities, and all other relevant stakeholders in England on how to carry out their roles and responsibilities when installing wireless network infrastructure. It is also a useful tool for other interested stakeholders such as community groups, amenity bodies and individuals with an interest in mobile connectivity. We remain mindful of the visual impact that the deployment of digital infrastructure can have on local communities and surrounding areas.

Question 5

Call for evidence rationale

Accepted Answer

The consideration of this call for evidence is to build on that approach by addressing specific, evidenced barriers, that may exist in the planning system, to infrastructure deployment where otherwise low‑impact upgrades or new equipment deployment potentially face avoidable delay and cost.

The upgrade to 5G Standalone (5GSA) on the UK’s network increases demand for capacity at busy locations and requires greater network densification in towns and cities. 5GSA is the full, end-to-end, 5G network that delivers low‑latency and high‑capacity connectivity for public use, businesses and critical services. It enables advanced applications — from safer transport and modern manufacturing to responsive public services — and will increasingly carry everyday voice and data. As usage grows (including data‑intensive AI applications), networks must add capacity in busy places and maintain resilience during site changes, and the deployment of 5G Standalone is critical to this.

In order to deliver and upgrade to 5GSA, operators typically need to modernise existing sites by adding or replacing antennas, installing new, expanding cabinet space for new radios and power systems, and in many cases deploying additional small cells or taller monopoles to achieve the densification and coverage required for low-latency, high-capacity services. These upgrades often involve rooftop works in urban areas and new backhaul connections.

In addition, we have seen an increase in the deployment and use of small cell systems on street furniture and buildings to further relieve 5G congestion, and we are seeking views on expanding the current size limits set out in legislation. Finally, it is essential to ensure that fibre backhaul is available, which includes deploying compact fibre exchange facilities. Planning processes that are proportionate to these forms of development can materially shorten build times and bring forward the benefits of better connectivity.

Time spent navigating planning requirements and securing approvals could add time and cost to deployment, delaying the rollout and upgrading of mobile and fixed networks and the infrastructure needed to deliver 5GSA’s benefits for businesses, public services and consumers. Planning application statistics suggests that the vast majority of prior approval applications submitted under permitted development rights (across all sectors) are approved.^{[footnote 5]} However, applications for telecoms infrastructure make up a small proportion of total applications and are not separately identified, therefore it is not possible to draw conclusions from these statistics, and we hope to collect relevant information with this call for evidence. Industry reports a significant proportion of prior‑approval applications are refused. Initial industry views suggest that where network operators are refused planning permission they often appeal the planning decision and a large share of appeals get overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. The process for appealing a planning decision can extend deployments by up to a year and add material cost. Industry states that if permitted development rights were changed to prior notification instead of prior approval, it would improve the speed of deployment.

We have identified several areas where we seek additional evidence and information to determine whether further reforms to planning rules are necessary to support the government’s nationwide coverage ambitions. These policy areas include:

temporary redeployment after a Notice-to-Quit (NTQ)
expanding permitted development rights for larger rooftop infrastructure on protected land
expanding permitted development rights for ground-based masts
bringing fibre-exchanges into permitted development
small cell systems and lifting restrictions on size
updating the Wireless Code of Practice
new build connectivity – mobile
rail connectivity
assessing the impact of previous planning reforms

We welcome evidence—quantitative and qualitative—on the scale of benefits, the adequacy of safeguards, and any additional steps that would make the system work better for communities and for the deployment of digital infrastructure. In considering these reforms, the government will ensure that changes to planning rules maintain robust safeguards for national security. This includes protecting defence assets and critical national infrastructure, and ensuring that accelerated deployment does not compromise security requirements. We welcome evidence on how planning processes can balance faster rollout with these essential security considerations.

Temporary redeployment after a Notice‑to‑Quit (NTQ)

When landowners request equipment to be removed or relocated, operators often require a temporary site while a permanent replacement is identified and secured to ensure that local communities continue to be served with connectivity. Industry reports that that Notices‑to‑Quit (NTQs) are an increasing barrier to maintaining existing mobile coverage in local areas. Operators report that the current emergency right as set out in the Order — which allows temporary, moveable apparatus for up to 18 months — is often too short to secure the necessary wayleave agreements and planning permission for permanent replacements.

Industry reports this has resulted in a sizeable number of temporary sites ultimately being lost when the window expired before the permanent site was live.

We continue to consider possible remedies to the challenges highlighted by the sector, including an option to extend the emergency period as set out in the Order from 18 to 36 months. Stakeholders are invited to comment on the proportionality and potential unintended effects of each change (including any safeguards for heritage and amenity), the likely impact on Planning Inspectorate and any alternative, non‑legislative interventions (e.g., LPA practice guidance, that could deliver similar or better outcomes for NTQ continuity.

Extending the permitted period could better protect users who depend on nearby infrastructure for their connectivity while keeping temporary impacts proportionate. We invite views on whether the 18‑month period is adequate for NTQ scenarios, how far refusals and appeal timelines are driving avoidable coverage loss, and whether the challenges are disproportionately concentrated in dense urban areas compared with rural contexts. We welcome evidence that corroborates or challenges these figures (including alternative methodologies, local case studies, and distributional impacts on vulnerable users), and views on additional indicators the government should consider for NTQ impact appraisal (e.g., emergency‑service resilience, business continuity, and social‑inclusion metrics).

Questions (1 to 4)

We are seeking views on extending the permitted period for temporary relocation of apparatus following a landowner NTQ. The current limit for emergency use is 18 months as set out in the GPDO.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 1: How appropriate is the current limit of 18 months for the emergency period to temporarily deploy infrastructure without planning permission?

Multiple choice answers:

It’s too short
It’s of an appropriate length
It’s too long
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 1a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of 18-month the limit for you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents or any other effects).

Question 2: What would be the most appropriate limit for the emergency period?

Multiple choice answers:

18 months (current limit)
24 months
36 months
Other, please explain
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 2a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of retaining or changing the current limit for you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 3: How do you think extending the 18-month limit would affect each of the following?

Separate open text box on:

Coverage and restoration of coverage following site loss
Amenity
Noise
Local authority workload
Is there anything else you think would be affected if the limit is extended?

Question 4: Please describe any safeguards or conditions you believe should be applied to any extension of the limit and explain why you think they are important.

Larger rooftop infrastructure on protected land and unprotected land

Some sector operators have suggested that, in areas that are predominately rural, the current limit of 3 antennae per rooftop mast on protected land^{[footnote 6]} has limited improvements in wireless capacity. Increasing the rooftop antenna limit on protected land from 3 to 6 could serve to help deliver better connectivity to rural communities.

Industry report that that the current rules for Article 2(3) land (also known as “protected land”) can slow down the installation of rooftop equipment needed to maintain and upgrade mobile networks. At the moment, some rooftop antennas are allowed without the need to submit a planning application if they meet limits: for example, dish antennas under 0.6 metres or other antennas under 3 metres high and no more than 3 rooftop antennas. In practice, the supporting structures often fall outside these limits, meaning developers must go through a prior-approval process or submit a full planning application, which adds time and cost.

In addition, we understand that contemporary rooftop upgrades in protected land frequently involve co‑siting 4G and 5G equipment and that 3 antenna allowances can struggle to match operational need in capacity hotspots. Industry has indicated that clearer permitted development rights for rooftop infrastructure could improve outcomes significantly, increase antennae redeployment and save time spent in the planning system by moving more cases from 56‑day prior‑approval routes to 28‑day notifications—thereby accelerating service continuity and upgrades on protected land.

Current regulations mean rooftop masts can only reach a maximum of 6 metres above the highest part of the building. Some operators have suggested increasing this limit to 8 metres to accommodate the higher radio frequencies required for 5GSA, which often necessitate taller apparatus. We invite public views and evidence on whether there is merit in making this change.

Questions (5 to 8)

We are seeking views and evidence on expanding permitted developments rights to allow additional rooftop apparatus in protected land including moving certain developments from prior approval to prior notification and increasing the current allowance of 3 antennas where appropriate.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 5: How do the current rules requiring a prior-approval process or a full planning application for larger rooftop infrastructure affect you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects)?

Question 5a: Should specified rooftop apparatus on protected land that can currently be deployed under prior approval move to prior notification?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 5b: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of the move from prior approval to prior notification for you or your organisation (for example in terms of costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 6: What do you think is an appropriate limit on the number of antennas per rooftop mast on protected land?

Multiple choice:

3 (current limit)
4
5
6
Other, please specify
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 6a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of retaining or changing the current limit for you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 6b: If the current limit of 3 antennas was to be increased in protected areas, what design or heritage safeguards do you believe should be in place?

Question 7: What evidence is there on coverage benefits and visual impacts in protected areas?

Question 7a: Should the current maximum height limit for rooftop masts (6m above the highest part of the building) be increased to 8m to accommodate new technologies such as 5G?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 7b: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of increasing the height limit for you or your organisation (for example in terms of coverage benefits, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 7c: If the height limit was increased, what design or heritage safeguards do you believe should be in place?

Question 8: Are there other barriers to the deployment of digital infrastructure on rooftops on unprotected land, noting the current restriction of 6m in height for rooftop masts?

Ground‑based monopoles in non‑designated land

Increasing mobile infrastructure capacity, especially with the increasing deployment of 5G standalone, is essential. This is especially true as new and emerging technologies, such as AI, require additional network capacity. Permitting taller monopoles, up to 20 metres, under Prior Notification could support local connectivity and speed up delivery of 5G capacity and coverage of 5G standalone.

Industry suggests that allowing slim ground‑based monopoles up to 20 metres as permitted development without prior approval on non‑designated land would materially accelerate rollout and improve continuity of service.

We invite views on the proportionality of a 20 metres permitted development threshold, whether current A.2(1) conditions and Code notifications are sufficient, and what—if any—additional conditions (e.g., design requirements, siting criteria near schools or heritage assets, micro‑siting tolerances) would be necessary to ensure good outcomes.

We understand that increasing mast height from 15 metres to 20 metres can help wireless broadcast signals travel more effectively over obstacles like trees and nearby buildings. It also allows more space for multiple operators to share the same structure and, in some cases, can reduce the overall number of masts needed by increasing each site’s coverage area. We would welcome evidence on whether 20 metres offers the best balance between meeting network needs and reducing the number of sites through sharing.

Industry has suggested that permitting 20 metres monopoles would result in a rise in masts deployed and increase the rate of deployment by reducing the window of time required to obtain a determination. These gains could support the deployment of 5G standalone, particularly in suburban and urban areas where rooftops are less available.

In addition, current rules permit ground-based masts to be deployed on unprotected land with a maximum of 25 metres height, and 20 metres in protected areas or highway land. We would like to use this call for evidence to understand if increasing these height parameters would support greater coverage of 5GSA and unlock additional investment into digital infrastructure, in particular in relation to network upgrades on existing apparatus.

Questions (9 to 12)

We are seeking views on allowing ground-based monopoles up to 20m as permitted development in non-designated areas subject to prior notification (not prior approval) as-well-as inviting views on whether existing height restrictions on other types of ground-based masts should be changed.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 9: How do the current rules requiring a prior-approval process to deploy a monopole up to 20 metres affect you or your organisation (for example in terms of costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects)?

Question 9a: Should monopoles up to 20 metres be allowed in unprotected areas under prior notification?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 9b: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of this change for you or your organisation (for example in terms of costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 9c: If 20 metres monopoles were allowed under prior notification, what would be the effect on areas with local wireless capacity issues?

Question 10: Should the existing height limit for ground-based masts (excluding monopoles) in unprotected areas be increased from 25 metres to 30 metres, changing the approval process from prior approval to prior notification?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 10a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of this change for you or your organisation (for example in terms of costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 10b: If the height limit was increased, what would be the effect on local coverage and the timescale of the network upgrades required for 5GSA?

Question 11: Should the existing height limit for ground-based masts (excluding monopoles) in protected areas and on highway land be increased from 20 metres to 25 metres allowed under prior approval?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 11a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of this change for you or your organization (for example in terms of costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects).

Question 11b: If the height limit was increased, what would be the effect on local coverage and the timescale of the network upgrades required for 5GSA?

Question 12: If government proceeds with any of the proposed changes outlined in the previous questions, what specific mitigations should be required to manage impacts on visual amenity, heritage and environmental sensitivities?

Small cell systems and restrictions on size

Some industry operators have claimed that definitions and size parameters of small cells have not kept pace with multi‑operator equipment and newer, typically larger, 5G radios across different mobile network operators.

We understand that shared small‑cell infrastructure provides an important layer of coverage that can deliver capacity in streets and settlements where rooftop options are limited. However, the current mix of definitions (small antennas versus small‑cell systems) and measurement rules can push otherwise modest, multi‑operator solutions into full planning on drafting technicalities.

Under the current rules in Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO, a “small cell system” is defined as a low‑power wireless network access equipment operating within a small range (irrespective of whether the underlying network type is a mobile or fixed line network). It must not be too powerful or too large. The signal strength is limited to 10 watts, and the main unit must not exceed 50 litres. When measuring size, the power supply and casing are included, but excludes any mounting, fixing, bracket or other support structure.

Some operators have also indicated that one unit can serve several mobile operators at the same time. Although the system can be set up to send out more power, up to 100 watts, in practice it is limited to an average of 10 watts over 6 minutes. They argue this restriction can make it harder to provide strong and reliable service when multiple operators share the same unit.

They propose regulating small cells by dimension only, removing broadcast‑technology references, explicitly including associated items such as meter cabinets and pillars within the system definition, and enlarging the size parameters so that a single unit can lawfully host all 4 MNOs.

Questions (13 to 15)

We are seeking views on updating size parameters and definitions for small cell systems so that equipment can support multiple operators and newer 5G equipment within clear, consistent limits. We are interested in proposals to align the treatment of “small antennas” and “small cell systems” and in evidence on visual and street clutter impacts.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 13: To what extent, if at all, do restrictions on small cells affect you or your organisation? Please provide details of this (for example, in terms of deployment timelines, costs, hosting operator equipment etc.)

Question 14: What changes to small cell systems’ definitions and or size limits would support multi-operator equipment and 5G while helping to manage and minimise street clutter?

Question 15: What conditions or limitations do you believe would be proportionate in this context? Please describe any conditions or limitations (for example on mounting locations, cabling, power, maintenance access) and explain why they would be proportionate.

Review of Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO to clarify and simplify rules

Owing to the numerous amendments made to Part 16 over recent years, some telecoms operators have suggested that the current regulatory framework under Part 16 leads to inconsistency in interpretation and application of permitted development rules. Reforming Part 16 could streamline processes, reduce unnecessary appeals, and deliver a more predictable environment for investment and deployment.

Looking ahead, industry anticipates significant upgrades and new site installations over the next 5 years. Without reform, the current framework could risk prolonging delays and inefficiencies, potentially hindering the UK’s ability to achieve its connectivity ambitions. We are therefore seeking evidence on whether a comprehensive review of Part 16 would be beneficial, with the aim of delivering clearer guidance, ensuring consistent application, and aligning the regulations with modern 5G infrastructure requirements—ultimately supporting faster rollout and better coverage for communities. In particular, we would welcome insights from local planning officers with direct experience of assessing applications from digital infrastructure providers.

Questions (16 to 19)

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 16: How clear are the current Part 16 rules?

Very clear
Clear
Neither clear nor unclear
Unclear
Very unclear
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 16a: Please provide evidence for your answer.

Question 17: How consistently are the Part 16 rules applied and/or interpreted across local authorities in England?

Multiple choice:

Completely consistent
Mostly consistent
Somewhat inconsistent
Very inconsistent
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 17a: Please provide evidence for your answer.

Question 17b: If you feel the current rules are not applied consistently, how does this affect you or your organisation (for example, in terms of the outcome of planning applications)?

Question 17c: Please describe how previous legislative changes to Part 16 have affected you or your organisation’s ability to interpret or implement the rules. Please provide examples of challenges, delays or any other impacts on you or your organisation.

Question 18: Do you think a full review of the Part 16 rules would help improve their clarity?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 18a: Please provide evidence for your answer.

Question 18b: Beyond those referenced elsewhere, which targeted reforms to Part 16 would provide greater clarity to local planning officers?

Question 19: Do you think a full review of Part 16 would support 5G standalone rollout?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 19a: Please provide evidence for your answer.

Fibre exchanges

Some operators have suggested that obtaining permission for fibre exchange, purpose-built hubs where fibre-optic cables from local networks converge and connect to the core network, enabling high-speed broadband services, can add months to deployment schedules. Bringing fibre exchange structures, a purpose-built hub where fibre-optic cables from local access networks converge and connect to the core network, into permitted development (with conditions for design, noise, access and flood risk) would potentially unlock backhaul earlier and make last‑mile upgrades viable. Industry provided information suggests that significant challenges in securing planning approval for fibre exchange (FEx) sites. A key issue is inconsistency between planning authorities regarding required supporting documentation, which leads to delays and additional costs. While some variation is expected due to site differences, the lack of clarity and occasional refusal pose risks to deployment timelines. The government is consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to encourage a more consistent and proportionate approach to local information requirements (which are set out in local validation lists).

Questions (20 to 23)

We seek views on moving fibre exchange structures into permitted development subject to conditions. We invite evidence on typical footprints, siting considerations, cumulative impacts and any safeguards that may be required.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 20: How do the current rules regarding FEx sites affect you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, or any other effects)?

Question 21: Do you think certain fibre exchange structures should be allowed as permitted development?

Multiple choice:

Yes
No
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 21a: Please explain the reason for your answer, including any effect of this change for you or your organisation (for example in terms of administrative processes, costs, resourcing, timelines, engagement with local residents, or any other effects)

Question 22: If you think they should be allowed, what dimensional thresholds or conditions would be appropriate?

Question 23: What are the key planning considerations for local authorities when determining planning applications for FEx sites (for example noise, transport, flood risk, design)? For each consideration, please also suggest how it could be addressed.

Updating the Wireless Code of Practice

The Code of Practice provides guidance to Code Operators (referred to as ‘operators’ throughout the Code of Practice), including the Mobile Network Operators and wireless infrastructure providers, their agents and contractors, local planning authorities, and all other relevant stakeholders in England on how to carry out their roles and responsibilities when installing wireless network infrastructure. It is also a useful tool for other interested stakeholders such as community groups, amenity bodies and individuals with an interest in mobile connectivity. The Code Of practice was developed in collaboration with representatives of the mobile network industry, other government departments and public bodies, local planning authorities, and protected landscapes

The aim of the Wireless Code of Practice is to support the government’s objective of delivering high quality wireless infrastructure nationwide whilst balancing these needs with environmental considerations. It also has an important role in making sure that appropriate engagement takes place with local communities and other interested parties. Recent feedback from operators and local authorities suggests that updating the Code of Practice could be beneficial, in particular to reflect the latest developments in 5G standalone.

In addition, The Code of Practice encourages operators to minimise the visual impact of new network development on surrounding areas, particularly in sensitive locations, and sets out how this should be achieved in line with planning conditions in legislation. In addition, operators are also encouraged to share sites and equipment where possible. Through the Code of Practice, the mobile network operators have committed to site sharing wherever viable.

The Code of Practice states that government should convene a working group every 6 months to review the guidance. However, we have not seen clear evidence to date that this would add value. We would welcome views on whether convening such a group would be beneficial, and what the appropriate frequency of meetings should be.

Questions (24 to 27)

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 24: How effective is the current Code of Practice in providing sufficient guidance for deploying network infrastructure?

Multiple choice:

Very effective
Effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Ineffective
Very ineffective
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

Question 24a: Please explain the reason for your answer and include any evidence, examples or recent experiences that support your view.

Question 25: Where the current Code is ineffective, what impact does it have on you/your organisation?

Question 26: In what areas could the Code of Practice be updated to reflect the latest developments in network rollout? Please provide specific examples and reasons.

Question 27: Do you think it would be beneficial for the government to convene a working group to review the guidance.

No
Yes, on an ad hoc basis
Yes, every 6 months
Yes, every year
Yes, every 2 years
Other, please specify
I’m unsure
I have no opinion

New build connectivity -mobile

Some sector operators have suggested that there a recurring gap in planning: major housing and mixed‑use schemes are often progressed without systematic engagement with mobile operators. This has led to instances where completed developments have inadequate outdoor mobile coverage; operators are then forced into street‑works monopoles near new homes, which can prompt resident objections on visual impact, cabinet noise and (where used) generator fumes, and sometimes creating conflict where pre‑existing telecoms sites are placed at odds with the consented layout.

Some mobile operators have said that that early, structured engagement will improve certainty for developers and residents and deliver better, shared solutions that meet rising capacity demand as new housing is occupied.

Questions (28 to 30)

We seek views on encouraging developers to consider mobile coverage and digital connectivity from the outset of design for new developments, including practical routes to engage operators early. We are not proposing a statutory duty.

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 28: To what extent, if at all, does the current engagement between mobile operators and developers affect you or your organisation? Please provide details of the ways in which this affects you or your organisation and include any examples or evidence.

Question 29: What practical mechanisms would best encourage early engagement between developers and operators? Please explain the reason for your answer and include any examples or evidence.

Question 30: What non-statutory levers (e.g. guidance) would be most effective in encouraging developed to plan for mobile coverage from the outset of development? Please explain the reason for your answer and include any examples or evidence.

Rail connectivity

Coverage on the rail network remains patchy and often unreliable for passengers; railway lines often run through cuttings and pass through tunnels so that signals from masts placed outside of the rail corridor cannot reach the trains. Trackside infrastructure can provide a consistent signal, but this is complicated to deploy, as suggested by stakeholders raising issues around the challenges of deploying digital infrastructure along rail corridors.

In the 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy, the government committed to working with Ofcom, the telecommunications regulator, and other relevant regulators to assess the telecommunications network requirements of the transport, energy and water sectors by the end of 2026. The assessment of the transport sector will include both the operational and passenger requirements for the rail network. As part of this work, we would like to understand whether there are planning-related barriers to deployment of digital infrastructure which hinder the improvement of coverage along the rail network for both operational and passenger use, and if so, what they are.

Questions (31 to 33)

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 31: Do you consider existing planning legislation or guidance to be a barrier to deployment of digital infrastructure along the rail network? If so, please specify what exactly is a barrier.

Question 32: Where legislation or guidance is a barrier, what is the impact on you or your organisation? Please include any examples or evidence.

Question 33: What legislative or non-legislative changes could support Mobile Network Operators and Neutral Host Providers to deploy digital infrastructure for passenger connectivity on the rail network?

Assessing the impact of previous planning reforms

We are seeking views on the effectiveness of previous changes to planning regulations and associated frameworks, specifically the planning reforms introduced in 2016 and 2022. These changes aimed to streamline deployment processes for digital infrastructure, reduce costs, and accelerate network rollout timelines. Understanding their impact is essential to inform future policy decisions and ensure that planning rules continue to support investment and innovation in connectivity.

We welcome evidence on whether these reforms have delivered their intended benefits, including improvements to deployment speed, cost efficiency, and planning certainty. We are also interested in any unintended consequences or barriers that remain, particularly where planning reforms have not achieved the desired outcomes.

Questions (34 to 37)

We would welcome views and evidence on:

Question 34: What impacts have the previous 2016 and 2022 planning reforms had on deployment timelines, costs, and the planning system? Please provide evidence or examples where possible.

Question 35: How have these planning reforms affected certainty and administrative processes for operators and local authorities? Please describe any benefits or remaining challenges.

Question 36: Please share any supporting information for your response. This could include quantitative data, case studies, or examples that illustrate how these reforms have affected network rollout and upgrades.

Question 37: Are there specific areas where the planning reforms have been particularly effective or ineffective (e.g., rural vs urban deployment, mast upgrades, rooftop installations)?

Question 6

Environmental impact and equalities considerations

Accepted Answer

We welcome evidence on economic, environmental, heritage and amenity impacts of the proposals, including cumulative effects.

We also welcome views on equalities impacts under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), including how proposals may affect different groups and rural/urban communities.

Question 7

Devolution

Accepted Answer

Planning is a devolved matter in the United Kingdom and this call for evidence focuses on England. However, we would welcome and encourage views from stakeholders in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on interactions with their planning frameworks, and on any cross-border implications.

Question 8

Next steps

Accepted Answer

Subject to the evidence received, we may consult on specific draft measures and bring forward secondary legislation where appropriate.

From Realising the benefits of 5G. Figures are in 2018 prices. ↩
The wider economic impacts of emerging technologies in the UK ↩
Paragraph 2, Part 1, Schedule 3A of the Communications Act 2003 ↩
Changes to permitted development rights for electronic communications infrastructure: government response to the technical consultation ↩
Table PDR 2: district planning authorities - applications for prior approvals for permitted developments, England. Planning applications for telecoms infrastructure are included in the ‘All others’ category. ↩
Under planning law, protected areas are designated under Article 2 (3) land under Part 1 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. Article 2(3) land is defined as land within an area designated as a conservation area under section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (designation of conservation areas); an area of outstanding natural beauty; an area specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 41(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (enhancement and protection of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside); the Broads; a National Park; and a World Heritage Site. ↩

Reforming planning rules to accelerate deployment of digital infrastructure

Applies to England

Why we are consulting

Call for evidence details

How to respond to this call for evidence

Confidentiality and data protection

Background

Planning for telecoms infrastructure

Call for evidence rationale

Temporary redeployment after a Notice‑to‑Quit (NTQ)

Questions (1 to 4)

Larger rooftop infrastructure on protected land and unprotected land

Questions (5 to 8)

Ground‑based monopoles in non‑designated land

Questions (9 to 12)

Small cell systems and restrictions on size

Questions (13 to 15)

Review of Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO to clarify and simplify rules

Questions (16 to 19)

Fibre exchanges

Questions (20 to 23)

Updating the Wireless Code of Practice

Questions (24 to 27)

New build connectivity -mobile

Questions (28 to 30)

Rail connectivity

Questions (31 to 33)

Assessing the impact of previous planning reforms

Questions (34 to 37)

Environmental impact and equalities considerations

Devolution

Next steps

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England

Why we are consulting

Call for evidence details

How to respond to this call for evidence

Confidentiality and data protection

Background

Planning for telecoms infrastructure

Call for evidence rationale

Temporary redeployment after a Notice‑to‑Quit (NTQ)

Questions (1 to 4)

Larger rooftop infrastructure on protected land and unprotected land

Questions (5 to 8)

Ground‑based monopoles in non‑designated land

Questions (9 to 12)

Small cell systems and restrictions on size

Questions (13 to 15)

Review of Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO to clarify and simplify rules

Questions (16 to 19)

Fibre exchanges

Questions (20 to 23)

Updating the Wireless Code of Practice

Questions (24 to 27)

New build connectivity -mobile

Questions (28 to 30)

Rail connectivity

Questions (31 to 33)

Assessing the impact of previous planning reforms

Questions (34 to 37)

Environmental impact and equalities considerations

Devolution

Next steps

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK