A 20m mast here was refused last year. The day after work on the 18m one began, the Council reversed its written position — and the mast now stands, with no consultation at any stage.
June 2025. That proposal went through the Prior Approval process, neighbours were consulted, and the Council said no — too big, wrong place, too ugly.
20 August, in writing: Prior Approval is required, it hasn’t been sought, and works without it “would be unlawful”.
25 August: a senior officer says the mast is a “replacement”, is permitted development, and the Council can take no action. Residents were never consulted at any stage.
New monopole on a new T9 root foundation, painted green, with 3 Alpha AW3363 antennas at the top (top of antennas +18.0m, centre-line +16.6m). 12 feeders pre-rigged inside the pole.
The drawing marks tree level at about +12.0m and roof level nearby at about +4.9m. The existing 9.0m pole would be removed.
Titled “Vendor swap — detailed design” for EE and H3G (Three) via MBNL; designed by KTL. Site ref 1205960 “LP Hawthorn Avenue”, address “Opposite 53 Hawthorn Close, Hitchin, SG5 2BP”.
A new EE “Porter” cabinet on the existing plinth, alongside the existing Dorset, Ericsson 6130, bowler and Mk4 link cabinets. Existing feeder cables to be re-used.
Figures read from the operator’s elevation drawing submitted with notice 26/00508/EC. Heights are “AGL” (above ground level) as marked on the drawing.
On 4 September the Council supplied the extract of the drawing it used. Two dimensions are marked at ground level: 0.21m across the base of the existing grey column, and 0.35m across the base of the proposed pole (drawn in red).
0.35m − 0.21m = 0.14m. And 0.14 ÷ 0.21 = 0.666… — an increase of precisely two thirds. On the Council’s own figures the pole does not sit comfortably below the two-thirds width test it describes; it sits exactly on the line.
For a mast under a metre wide, Prior Approval is needed where the replacement “would, when altered or replaced, exceed the original width of the mast by two thirds” (Part 16, paragraph A.2(3)(d)(ii)(aa) for a mast in a highway; A.2(3)(c)(iia)(aa) elsewhere). The very next line, for wider masts, says “by more than one half”. The words are not the same. Residents have asked how an increase of exactly two thirds falls outside “by two thirds”.
The Order defines it: “the width of the mast at its widest point — (a) excluding any antenna; and (b) including any antenna support structures”. And “original width” is “the width of the mast approved by the most recent prior approval given in respect of the mast” — not whatever figure appears on the operator’s new drawing.
The 0.21m is taken across the base of the existing column on the operator’s 2026 drawing, which labels it “Existing SW Lamppost to be removed” (site name “LP Hawthorn Avenue”). But the Council’s own register shows this pole was approved in August 2016 as a “9.7m high Phase 4 monopole with integral streetlight” (16/01537/1TD). On the Order’s definition, the width to start from is the one in that 2016 approval, at its widest point. Residents have asked which document the Council’s 0.21m comes from — and note the drawing calls the same pole 9.0m.
If the 0.21m was read off the new drawing rather than the 2016 approval, or if the pole as built is even a few millimetres wider than 0.35m, the Council’s own arithmetic fails — and Prior Approval, with neighbour consultation, would be required. Residents have also asked why an 18m pole on a new foundation is a “replacement” at all: the operator’s own notice on the register describes “a new 18m Alpha monopole”.
The Council has cited both height figures: 25m for unprotected land (25 August) and 20m “for a mast within the highway” (4 September). At 18m the pole passes either height test. The width test is where the margin is zero — and, as built, it appears to have been crossed.
The base of the new mast is not a round pole but a box-shaped enclosure. Residents measured it with a steel tape held flat across each face, with ward councillor Keith Hoskins present:
About 0.37m across.
About 0.39m across — 4cm more than the drawing, and about 86% wider than the 0.21m the Council gave for the old pole.
About 6.8m from the new mast, and residents understand it is being kept and converted to a lamppost. So what exactly has been “replaced”?
For a box, the Order’s “widest point” is arguably across the corners, which would be wider again. Residents have asked the Council to inspect independently and say how it treats the enclosure, its doors and casing when working out the mast’s width (email 28).
Residents are not planning officers and make no legal determination here. These are the Council’s own figures, the Council’s own drawing extract, measurements taken in front of a ward councillor, the wording of the Order as published on legislation.gov.uk, the Council’s own planning register, and the questions residents have put to it in writing — all of which are in the correspondence below.
Prior approval is required for the 18m mast and this has not been sought.
North Herts Council — Thursday 20 August 2026
Any works would be unlawful and we would initiate an enforcement investigation.
North Herts Council — Thursday 20 August 2026
The proposal is permitted development and prior approval is not required… no action may be taken by this Council.
North Herts Council — Tuesday 25 August 2026, the day after work began
The previous informal officer view regarding this development was reviewed… it is for the operator to ensure that the proposal would constitute permitted development.
North Herts Council — Friday 4 September 2026
Planning Enforcement do not monitor the implementation of development and compliance, therefore cannot investigate further…
North Herts Council, Planning Compliance Officer — Tuesday 8 September 2026
Carrying out development without planning permission is generally not a criminal offence, even if the development is not desirable to members of the public.
North Herts Council, Planning Compliance Officer — Tuesday 8 September 2026
We will be reopening the case… the erection of the mast will be investigated in due course but is not considered as urgent.
North Herts Council, Planning Enforcement — Tuesday 29 September 2026
Whether the mast constitutes a replacement mast will form part of the investigation by the Planning Enforcement team.
North Herts Council, Development and Conservation Manager — Wednesday 30 September 2026
Openreach own and maintain the physical network; cables, fibre, boxes, masts and installations… EE is considered a service provider.
North Herts Council, Planning Enforcement — Wednesday 30 September 2026
My concern is the overbearing nature of this installation in this short and narrow residential area.
Cllr Keith Hoskins, Hitchin Priory ward — Saturday 26 September 2026
A 20m mast was proposed and attracted substantial local opposition. It did not proceed.
A revised 18m replacement mast, replacing the existing 9m structure, was proposed without the normal public consultation residents had expected.
North Herts Council initially confirmed in writing that Prior Approval was required, had not been obtained, and that works proceeding without the necessary approval would be unlawful and investigated.
Works then commenced, prompting residents — relying on the Council’s advice — to contact Planning Enforcement, councillors, EE and the media.
After works had begun, the Council reversed its position, saying that following further review and clarification with the operator, the 18m replacement is permitted development and does not require Prior Approval.
Residents ask for the measurements and calculations behind the revised conclusion. The same day the Planning Enforcement Team opens case 26/00147/1ENF and appoints an investigating officer.
On 26 August the base is sunk into the verge and the hole filled in — no pole. On 27 August the Enforcement Team visits the site.
The Council supplies its measurements: the existing structure 0.21m wide, the proposed pole 0.35m — an increase of exactly two thirds — and says 18m is below the 20m threshold for a mast in the highway. It describes the earlier position as an “informal officer view” that has been reviewed, and repeats that it received a notice, not an application.
Residents notice that enforcement case 26/00147/1ENF is no longer visible on the Council’s public planning system, and ask what has happened to it — alongside five questions on the statutory basis for the reversal.
The Planning Compliance Officer replies: enforcement cases are not published unless a notice is served; the 27 August visit found that “there has not been a breach of planning control” on “the findings and current information available”; the case “will now be considered for closure”; and Enforcement “do not monitor the implementation of development and compliance”.
Residents reply the same evening: the visit took place before any 18m pole existed, so it cannot have checked the dimensions the Council’s conclusion depends on. They ask for the full scaled drawings, the exact widths in millimetres, which points were measured and the manufacturer’s specification — and for confirmation that residents can still report the structure once built. The 4 September questions on the statutory basis remain unanswered.
The 18m mast is erected. The Council’s only enforcement visit remains the one on 27 August, before there was a pole.
Residents write to the Planning Compliance Officer, copied to the MP. They ask the Council to inspect and measure the mast as built — height, widest point including antenna supports, and the precise increase over the pole it replaced; to name the provisions of Part 16 it relies on; to say whether 26/00147/1ENF is open or closed, and why; to establish what site-selection and alternative-site assessment EE carried out; and to confirm that alteration or removal remains available if the mast falls outside permitted development. They cite a Bolton appeal in which an inspector upheld a notice requiring a mast among bungalows to be taken down.
The same afternoon residents send the Council a Freedom of Information request: who owns the land the mast and its cabinets stand on, and does the Council receive rent or any other payment for them — in each of the last five years, and the next five? The Council acknowledges it the same day under reference IRCM00001052. It has 20 working days to answer: by Monday 19 October.
With Cllr Keith Hoskins present, residents measure the base enclosure of the new mast: about 0.37m across the front and 0.39m across the side, against 0.35m on the drawing. The old pole, about 6.8m away, is understood to be staying as a lamppost. Residents ask for an independent inspection, a reasoned answer on the width and on how this counts as a “replacement”, and for enforcement case 26/00147/1ENF to be kept open or reopened.
Residents ask Cllr Hoskins whether he has contacted the Council. He has: he writes to officers that he considers the site “inappropriate”, that the measurements “may need to be officially checked”, and that his concern is “the overbearing nature of this installation in this short and narrow residential area”. He also notes the enforcement officer has left the Council.
Planning Enforcement reopens case 26/00147/1ENF to investigate the report that the mast does not comply with permitted development. It says the case is not urgent, the team is under-resourced, a new officer will be assigned, site visits are not disclosed to residents, and questions about the law go to the Development and Conservation Manager. Residents reply the same day, asking to show the officer where they measured and for an answer on whether this is a replacement or a new mast.
The Development and Conservation Manager replies that whether the mast is a replacement at all “will form part of the investigation” — the very point the Council’s 25 August conclusion depended on. He says residents and councillors cannot attend the site investigation, “to avoid any perception of undue influence” on any later enforcement action.
Planning Enforcement tells residents that questions about the mast’s “physical treatment” and why it was treated as a replacement “would be answered by Openreach”, describing EE as a service provider. Openreach runs BT’s fixed-line network; the drawings show this as an EE and Three mast, delivered through their joint company MBNL. Residents reply the same evening with 13 questions, starting with who the Council regards as the operator and which organisation gave it the “clarification” it relied on.
In short: residents went from being told by the Council that the mast could not lawfully proceed without Prior Approval, to being told — after work had started — that Prior Approval was not required. The enforcement case that followed visited before there was a pole to measure. The mast now stands, and residents are asking the Council to measure what was actually built. The full letters are below.
The correspondence so far, 20 August – 30 September 2026 — with North Herts Council, its Enforcement and Freedom of Information teams, our ward councillor, and with EE. Personal details of residents and officers have been removed; councillors are named as public office-holders. The Council’s replies are shown in full.
Subject: URGENT: 26/00508/EC – 18m telecoms monopole at Hawthorn Close, Hitchin
Dear Planning Officer et al,
I am writing regarding the proposed telecommunications installation on land adjacent to 53 Hawthorn Close, Hitchin, and specifically the 2026 case 26/00508/EC. I have only just become aware of this proposal after seeing notices stating that “Essential Road Works” are due to commence next week in the vicinity of Hawthorn Close/Cranborne Avenue. Until this week, I had no knowledge that a revised telecommunications proposal had been submitted following the refusal of the previous scheme in 2025.
I am extremely concerned about both the proposal itself and, particularly, the process by which it appears to have been considered without any notification to local residents.
Previous 2025 proposal. The previous proposal, 25/01258/TD, involved a 20m telecommunications monopole at this location. It attracted very considerable local opposition, with more than 150 residents objecting, and Prior Approval was subsequently refused in June 2025. The strength of local feeling about a substantial telecommunications mast at this particular location was therefore very clearly known to the Council.
Revised 2026 proposal. I have now seen the drawings. The proposed monopole has been reduced from 20m to 18m, with changes to the antenna arrangement and associated equipment. Nevertheless, it remains a new and substantial freestanding monopole at the same location that was the subject of significant local objection and a refusal only last year. The elevation shows the surrounding tree level at approximately 12m, so the monopole would extend roughly 6m above the canopy.
Lack of consultation. The Council’s record for 26/00508/EC shows: received and validated 19 March 2026; neighbour consultation, standard consultation, advertisement and site notice all “Not Applicable”; decision made 30 March; issued 31 March; decision “No Objection”. As a result, the many residents who had objected to the previous proposal were given no notification and no opportunity to comment on the revised scheme.
I would be grateful for an urgent response to the following:
Having participated in a process last year in which more than 150 residents made their views known, those residents could reasonably have believed the matter had concluded when the proposal was refused. It is extremely concerning to discover — apparently only because roadworks notices appeared — that a revised 18m mast may have received a “No Objection” decision without residents being aware it was under consideration.
I would ask that this matter is treated as urgent in light of the roadworks advertised for next week, and that the Council confirm that steps can be taken to prevent installation of the monopole commencing while these questions are being addressed.
Kind regards
Thank you for your email and I understand your concerns.
Certain developments can be undertaken as ‘permitted development’. This is under national legislation — Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). The GPDO is statutory legislation, set at a national level. Part 16 of the GPDO refers to ‘Communications’ and sets out the criteria under which communications development can be considered permitted development. Class A refers to electronic communications code operators.
Some development that meets the permitted development criteria needs prior approval for siting and appearance from the Local Authority. Prior approval can be given or can be refused.
A new mast would be assessed under Class A of Part 16, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. A new mast of 30m or less may be permitted development. If it meets the permitted development criteria it would still require prior approval from the local authority over siting and design. A prior approval application would need to be submitted. Public consultation is undertaken by the local authority as part of the prior approval application process.
The 25/01258/TD application for a 20m mast was a prior approval application. Therefore consultation was undertaken. The application for prior approval was refused for the following reason: “result of the inappropriate scale, siting and appearance of the proposed 20 metre mast combined with the adverse impact from the amount and size of cabinets, that together would have a negative visual impact on the surrounding area.”
The 26/00508/EC case was not an application but a process where a notice is served on the local planning authority by the telecoms company that they intend to use their permitted development rights under Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO Class A. This case is a serving of a notice. It is not a planning application or an application seeking prior approval. It is therefore processed as such, and no consultation is undertaken for such cases as they are not a formal application but simply a serving of notice by the telecoms company.
In our response to the notice, we specified that it is the responsibility of the telecoms company to ensure that the proposal is permitted development and therefore whether prior approval is required.
It is our view that prior approval is required for the 18m mast and this has not been sought. If they proceed without planning permission or prior approval, any works would be unlawful and we would initiate an enforcement investigation.
We have notified the telecoms company today that notwithstanding the serving of the notice under 26/00508/EC, the new 18m mast would require prior approval to be sought and that if works are undertaken without this, we would initiate enforcement investigation.
I trust that the above is of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries or require clarification.
Kind regards,
Senior Planning Officer, Development Management, North Herts Council
Normal working hours: Monday and Thursday, 9.30am–5pm
Thank you very much for your detailed and helpful response, and in particular for contacting the telecommunications company today. Your explanation has provided residents with some much-needed clarity.
As I understand the position from your email:
This is particularly reassuring given the history of the site and the previous 25/01258/TD proposal, where prior approval for the 20m mast was refused because of the inappropriate scale, siting and appearance of the mast, together with the adverse visual impact of the associated cabinets.
What residents intend to do next. For the moment, residents do not intend to take any unnecessary further action while the company considers its position. If a prior approval application is submitted, we intend to engage constructively with the consultation process. In the meantime we will: keep a record of the existing installation and surrounding area; retain copies of correspondence and planning records; monitor the planning register for any new prior approval application; and monitor the forthcoming works in the Hawthorn Close/Cranborne Avenue area, particularly given the “Essential Road Works” notices.
One practical point: if contractors attend the site and appear to be commencing installation before prior approval has been obtained, could you confirm who residents should contact immediately at the Council, ideally with a mobile number? We would not interfere with contractors or works ourselves; we would record what is taking place from an appropriate location and report it promptly so officers can determine what action is required.
I would also be grateful if you could notify me, or ensure residents are notified, should a prior approval application be submitted, so that we do not miss the opportunity to participate in the consultation.
Kind regards
Further to my previous email, I would be very grateful if arrangements could be made for a Council officer to attend the site should contractors arrive to commence installation of the proposed 18m mast before prior approval has been obtained.
Given the Council’s confirmation that such works would be unlawful, I feel it is important that residents are not placed in the position of having to challenge or question contractors ourselves. Having a Council representative attend would ensure that the situation can be dealt with promptly and appropriately.
I have copied our local councillors into this email and would also be very grateful if one of them could attend on the dates they have given to potentially start work, to avoid unnecessary confrontation for the residents.
Our only intention is to ensure that the Council’s position is respected and that installation does not take place before the required planning process has been completed.
Kind regards
Good evening,
Thank you for your email.
You will need to contact the enforcement team on the email below or call 01462 474000 and ask to speak to the enforcement team.
planning.enforcement@north-herts.gov.uk
Many thanks
Senior Planning Officer, Development Management, North Herts Council
Subject: URGENT – Enforcement contact requested – 26/00508/EC, Hawthorn Close
Dear Planning Enforcement Team,
You have already been copied into my recent correspondence concerning the proposed 18m telecommunications monopole at Hawthorn Close (26/00508/EC). The Planning Officer has now specifically advised me to contact the Enforcement Team should works commence.
As confirmed in the earlier correspondence, North Herts Council’s position is that Prior Approval is required for the proposed 18m mast and has not been obtained, and that if works proceed without the necessary permission or Prior Approval, the works would be unlawful and an enforcement investigation would be initiated.
Given that “Essential Road Works” signs have recently appeared in the area and state that works will start tomorrow, 24 August, could you please:
I understand that residents can telephone 01462 474000 and ask for the Enforcement Team / Duty Planning Officer. If there is a more direct contact number or named officer who could deal urgently with this particular matter, I would be very grateful if you could provide it.
Residents will, of course, not confront or obstruct contractors. We simply want to ensure that the Council can be alerted immediately should installation commence before the required Prior Approval has been obtained.
I would be grateful for acknowledgement of this email so that residents know the appropriate procedure to follow should these unlawful works begin.
Kind regards
Dear all,
Just to add to my email below, I have copied our local councillors into this correspondence so that they are also aware of the urgency of the situation.
Should contractors attend tomorrow and appear to commence installation of the 18m mast before Prior Approval has been obtained, I would be extremely grateful for the councillors’ assistance in ensuring that the matter is brought immediately to the attention of the appropriate Council officers and, if possible, for a councillor to attend the site.
Many thanks for your assistance.
Kind regards
Subject: URGENT – Works due to commence tomorrow morning – Hawthorn Close, Hitchin, SG5 2BP, 18m telecoms mast
Dear EE Network Deployment / Community Liaison Team,
Re: Proposed 18m telecommunications mast, Hawthorn Close, Hitchin — planning ref 26/00508/EC
I am contacting you as a matter of extreme urgency on behalf of concerned local residents regarding the proposed 18m telecommunications mast at Hawthorn Close.
We urgently ask EE to confirm whether EE is the network operator responsible for this proposed installation; if so, to escalate this immediately to the appropriate Network Deployment team and contractors; and — most importantly — to instruct its contractors not to commence installation of the mast or associated works tomorrow morning until the planning position has been resolved with North Herts Council.
We hold the Council’s written correspondence confirming its position, together with a comprehensive photographic record of the preparations at the site, and can provide these immediately if required.
Given that contractors are expected tomorrow morning, we would be extremely grateful if this could be treated as an urgent out-of-hours escalation so that the appropriate contractor can be contacted before works commence. Please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm urgently what action EE is taking.
Kind regards
On behalf of concerned local residents
Subject: 26/00508/EC – Media informed following commencement of works
Dear Planning Enforcement Team and Councillors,
Further to my previous correspondence regarding the proposed 18m telecommunications mast at Hawthorn Close (26/00508/EC), I wanted to make you aware that, following the commencement of works today, we (a large residents group) will now inform the local press/media of the situation.
We have taken this step reluctantly, but given North Herts Council’s written confirmation that Prior Approval is required and has not been obtained, and that works proceeding without the necessary permission or Prior Approval would be unlawful and subject to an enforcement investigation, residents feel that the circumstances are now a matter of legitimate public interest.
The media will be provided with a factual account of events, including the planning reference and the Council’s stated position, if we do not hear from you today. We have also made clear that the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team has been contacted, so that the Council has had the opportunity to address the situation through the appropriate channels.
Our overriding concern remains that no works should proceed unless and until the necessary planning requirements have been properly satisfied.
We would therefore be grateful for an urgent update confirming what action the Council is now taking and, in particular, whether steps are being taken to prevent any further works while the planning position remains unresolved.
We remain hopeful that this matter can be addressed promptly and appropriately.
Kind regards
On behalf of the local residents group
Subject: URGENT: 18m Hitchin telecom mast works begin despite Council confirming Prior Approval has not been obtained
Dear News Desk,
I am contacting you on behalf of concerned local residents regarding the proposed 18-metre telecommunications mast at Hawthorn Close, Hitchin, North Hertfordshire, planning reference 26/00508/EC.
Contractors have today arrived and works appear to have commenced, despite North Herts Council having confirmed to residents in writing that Prior Approval is required for the proposed mast and has not been obtained.
A North Herts Planning Officer has also confirmed in writing that if works proceed without the necessary permission or Prior Approval, the works would be unlawful and an enforcement investigation would be initiated. Residents were specifically advised to contact Planning Enforcement if works commenced. We have now alerted the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team that contractors are on site.
This follows considerable local concern about the mast. More than 150 residents opposed the previous proposal, yet residents were not directly alerted to the present situation and only became aware that works appeared imminent after “Essential Road Works” signs appeared locally stating that works would begin on 24 August.
We can provide: photographs and video of contractors and works on site; photographs of the roadworks notices; the relevant correspondence from North Herts Council confirming its position; details of the planning history and reference 26/00508/EC; and local residents who are willing to speak about their concerns.
We believe there is an important public-interest question as to how works on an 18-metre telecommunications mast could be allowed to commence after the local planning authority has confirmed that the necessary Prior Approval has not been obtained.
We would be very happy to provide the documentation and photographs immediately and to speak to a reporter.
Kind regards
A local resident, on behalf of the residents group
Good morning,
This is being investigated by my colleague in the Planning Enforcement team. They will be in touch shortly.
Kind regards
Senior Planning Officer, Development Management, North Herts Council
Dear [officer],
Thank you for confirming that this matter is now being investigated by the Planning Enforcement Team.
I need to update you urgently that works have now commenced at the Hawthorn Close site today.
Given your previous confirmation that Prior Approval is required and has not been obtained, and that works proceeding without the necessary permission or Prior Approval would be unlawful and subject to an enforcement investigation, residents are extremely concerned that work is now actively taking place.
Could I therefore please ask, as a matter of urgency:
We are continuing to photograph and document activity at the site and can provide this evidence immediately if required.
Given that physical works are now underway, I would be very grateful if this could be treated as urgent today, before the development progresses any further. I am copying the Planning Enforcement Team and our local councillors into this email so that everyone is aware of the latest position.
Kind regards
On behalf of concerned local residents
Subject: URGENT: Works commenced at Hawthorn Close – 18m mast – Council ref 26/00508/EC
Dear EE,
I am following up on my email of 23 August concerning the proposed 18m telecommunications mast at Hawthorn Close (North Herts Council ref 26/00508/EC). I appreciate that my original email was sent over the weekend; however, the situation has now become even more urgent as works commenced at the site today, 24 August. Photographs attached.
North Herts Council has confirmed in writing that Prior Approval is required for the proposed 18m mast and has not been obtained. The Council has also advised that if works proceed without the necessary permission or Prior Approval, the works would be unlawful and an enforcement investigation would be initiated.
Given that works are now underway, could EE please urgently confirm:
This is now a matter of considerable concern to local residents and is extremely time-sensitive. The Council’s Planning Enforcement Team and our local councillors have also been notified that works have commenced. We have created a website documenting the history of the proposed mast and developments at the site, including photographs: hawthornclose.com.
I would therefore be grateful for an urgent response before any further installation works proceed.
Kind regards
On behalf of concerned local residents
Thank you for confirming yesterday that this matter was being passed to the Planning Enforcement Team.
As works have now recommenced at the Hawthorn Close site this morning, I would be grateful for an immediate urgent update. Could you please confirm:
Residents are understandably extremely concerned to see works progressing while we await clarification. We cannot understand how this can proceed without the prior approval you need. I would be grateful for an urgent response today.
Kind regards
Dear [resident],
I refer to your correspondence with the case officer for the above notification relating to a replacement 18m telecommunications mast at land adjacent to 53 Hawthorn Close, Hitchin.
As you may be aware telecommunications operators benefit from extensive permitted development rights for new and replacement telecommunications infrastructure. The question that has been raised in this case is whether prior approval is required from North Hertfordshire Council for the replacement mast and we have reviewed this matter and sought clarification from the operator. The Council’s response to the notification reference 26/00508/EC confirmed that it is for the operator to ensure that the proposed mast and associated works are permitted development. Nevertheless, as indicated above we have reviewed this case and the relevant Order and have concluded that the proposal is permitted development and that prior approval is not required.
The relevant section of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) is Part 16 of Schedule 2. Specifically, Class A covers permitted development rights for electronic communications code operators to install, alter, or replace apparatus like mobile phone masts without needing a full planning application. Whilst many installations require planning approval this is not the case in this instance relating to a replacement mast.
The proposal relates to the replacement and upgrade of an existing telecommunications support structure, rather than the establishment of an entirely new telecommunications site. The existing installation comprises a 9.0m EE/H3G structure carrying telecommunications antennas and associated feeders, which is to be replaced by the proposed 18.0m Alpha 8 pole.
For an existing structure, the prior approval provision is only triggered where the altered or replacement mast would exceed the original width of the mast by two-thirds. The proposed replacement pole does not exceed this threshold and, accordingly, I do not consider that its width provides a basis for requiring prior approval under paragraph A.2(3). In addition, the height parameters do not provide a basis for requiring prior approval either. The submitted drawings identify the existing structure as 9.0m high and the proposed replacement Alpha 8 pole as 18.0m high.
The land is not protected and, therefore, paragraph A.2(3)(c)(ii) applies a 25m height (or 20m within the highway) threshold to the alteration or replacement of an existing mast.
Extract from GPDO A.2(3)(c)(ii): “…the alteration or replacement of a mast, other than on a building, which, when completed — (aa) is taller than the mast which existed prior to such alteration or replacement; and (bb) exceeds a height of 25 metres above ground level excluding any antenna; is permitted subject… to the conditions set out in paragraph A.3 (prior approval).”
Therefore, because the provision uses the conjunctive “and” between (aa) and (bb), a replacement mast that becomes taller than before but remains under 25m (or 20m on a highway) does not trip this prior approval requirement.
I understand your concern relating to this replacement mast in this location. However, given that as the mast is permitted development it benefits from Planning Permission granted by Article 3 of the GPDO and no action may be taken by this Council as local planning authority.
Kind regards
Development and Conservation Manager, North Herts Council
Subject: 26/00508/EC – Hawthorn Close – request for clarification following review
Thank you for your detailed response and for explaining the Council’s revised position. However, given that residents had previously been advised in writing by the Council that Prior Approval was required and had not been obtained, and that works proceeding without it would be unlawful, I hope you will understand why today’s conclusion has come as a considerable surprise. Before we update residents, I would be grateful if you could clarify the following.
1. Width of the existing and proposed mast. You state that the proposed replacement pole does not exceed the relevant two-thirds width threshold. I have reviewed the submitted elevation drawing. While it clearly identifies the existing structure as 9.0m high and the proposed Alpha 8 pole as 18.0m high, I have been unable to identify on the drawing the respective width/diameter measurements upon which the Council’s two-thirds assessment has been based. Could you therefore please confirm:
If the measurements are contained in documents other than those currently available to residents, I would be grateful for copies of, or links to, those documents.
2. Status of the land. Your email refers to the 25m threshold applicable to unprotected land and also mentions a 20m threshold within the highway. Could you please confirm whether the Council has determined that the precise location of this mast constitutes unprotected land rather than land on a highway for the purposes of Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO, and the basis for that determination?
3. The Council’s previous advice. Finally, could you please explain what information or interpretation resulted in the Council previously advising residents that Prior Approval was required and had not been obtained, and what subsequently changed following the Council’s review and clarification with the operator?
Residents have relied in good faith upon the information provided to us by the Council, including when contacting Planning Enforcement, EE, councillors and other parties. It is therefore particularly important that we now have a clear written explanation of the revised position, together with the measurements and documents upon which that conclusion has been reached, so that we can ensure residents and others are provided with accurate information.
Kind regards
“Please find attached important correspondence from NHDC.”
Planning Enforcement, North Hertfordshire District Council, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City — the attachment is letter 18 below.
Planning Enforcement Report — Land Adjacent To 53, Hawthorn Close, Hitchin.
“Please quote the following reference: 26/00147/1ENF on all correspondence.
I acknowledge receipt of your recent enquiry concerning the above location and I thank you for bringing this to our attention. The matter you have raised will be investigated by [a named Enforcement Officer] who will contact you shortly.
Please note that we aim to update you at the key stages set out below: after the site visit and the next steps have been established; if a retrospective application has been submitted — this will allow you to view and comment on the application, if you wish to; where it is considered expedient to take enforcement action and formal action has been taken; when the investigation has ended, and the case closed.
Most breaches of planning control can be resolved through negotiation, although even where formal action is taken, this can take time to resolve… if you have not heard from us within six weeks, please email us.”
Planning Enforcement Team, North Herts District Council · ref 26/00147/1ENF
Dear [Enforcement Officer],
Thank you for the acknowledgement received today confirming that you have been allocated the Planning Enforcement investigation concerning the telecommunications development at Hawthorn Close, reference 26/00147/1ENF. As you will appreciate, this is particularly urgent because works have already commenced at the site.
I have today also received correspondence from the Development and Conservation Manager advising that, following a review and clarification with the operator, the Council now considers the proposed 18m replacement mast to be permitted development and that Prior Approval is not required. This differs from the Council’s earlier written advice to residents that Prior Approval was required and had not been obtained.
Given that an Enforcement investigation has nevertheless now been opened, could you please urgently confirm:
My particular concern is that the 18m mast could be erected before the Enforcement investigation and site inspection have taken place. Given that works are currently underway, I would be extremely grateful if this could be treated as urgent.
Kind regards
Dear [Enforcement Officer],
I am following up regarding the open Planning Enforcement investigation 26/00147/1ENF – Land Adjacent to 53 Hawthorn Close. I appreciate that the case has only recently been allocated to you. However, given that works have already commenced and may continue while the investigation remains open, I would be grateful if you could confirm:
This is particularly important given the significant change in the Council’s position. Residents were initially advised in writing that Prior Approval was required, had not been obtained, and that works proceeding without it would be unlawful and investigated. We were subsequently informed, after works had commenced, that following a further review the Council now considers Prior Approval not to be required.
Given this reversal, I would also be grateful if you could clarify the purpose and scope of the current enforcement investigation and whether it represents an independent examination of whether the proposed development complies with the requirements of Part 16 of the GPDO, notwithstanding the Council’s subsequently revised position.
My particular concern is that the proposed 18m mast could potentially be erected before the Council’s enforcement investigation has been completed. Could you therefore please confirm whether, if the investigation identifies a breach of planning control, the Council retains the ability to intervene and halt the works, and whether any consideration is being given to preventing completion of the installation until the investigation has concluded?
I would be very grateful for an update as soon as possible given the ongoing works.
Kind regards
Subject: RE: 26/00508/EC – Hawthorn Close – request for clarification following review
“I confirm that we checked the drawings and an extract is below that confirms the width of existing mast (0.21m) and proposed (0.35m) would meet the relevant provisions concerning the increase in width (2/3). At 18m high the replacement pole would be below the 20m high threshold for a mast within the highway.
The previous informal officer view regarding this development was reviewed. The regulations on this issue are complex and following a review of these regulations and the proposal I consider that the mast is be permitted development.
However, I would reiterate that we received a notice from the telecommunications operator of this proposal, not an application, and our response confirmed that it is for the operator to ensure that the proposal would constitute permitted development.”
Development and Conservation Manager MRTPI, North Herts Council. Reproduced in full; the drawing extract attached to the email is shown above.
Subject: Re: 26/00508/EC – Hawthorn Close – request for clarification following review
Thank you for your email and for explaining the Council’s revised position. I must, however, express my considerable concern at this change of position.
Only very recently I was advised in writing by the Council that “it is our view that prior approval is required for the 18m mast and this has not been sought”, and specifically that “if they proceed without planning permission or prior approval, any works would be unlawful and we would initiate an enforcement investigation”. Residents have understandably relied upon those unequivocal statements, and I subsequently contacted the Planning Enforcement Team as I had been advised to do.
I appreciate that the regulations are complex. However, given the very significant consequences of this reversal — particularly following the refusal of the 20m proposal in 2025 on grounds including scale, siting, appearance and visual impact — I would be grateful if you could clarify the following:
I also note that enforcement case reference 26/00147/1ENF, which was previously visible on the North Herts Council planning system, now appears no longer to be available. Please could you therefore also confirm:
Given that this enforcement matter arose directly from the Council’s earlier advice that works proceeding without Prior Approval would be unlawful, I believe it is reasonable for residents to understand what has happened to that investigation and how its outcome relates to the Council’s subsequent change of position.
I am particularly concerned that residents have now received two directly contradictory interpretations from the Council within a very short period, on an issue which determines whether they have any opportunity at all to participate through the Prior Approval consultation process.
I therefore hope you will understand why I am seeking the specific statutory basis, reasoning and documented sequence of decisions behind this revised conclusion, rather than simply an assurance that the proposal constitutes permitted development. Given the imminence of the advertised works, I would be very grateful for a response as soon as possible.
Kind regards
Subject: FW: 26/00508/EC – Hawthorn Close – request for clarification following review
“Thank you for your email.
In response to your queries relating to the enforcement case under reference 26/00147/1ENF, planning enforcement cases are not publicised on our website when a new investigation is set up. We publish details of cases where notices are served and are on public record. In this case, no such Notice has been served, so information for the investigation would not have been visible and therefore has not been removed.
On Thursday 27/8/26, a site visit from the enforcement team was made to appraise the site. Based on the findings and current information available, there has not been a breach of planning control and the enforcement case reference 26/00147/1ENF will now be considered for closure.
We do appreciate your concerns, however it is important to note that carrying out development without planning permission is generally not a criminal offence, even if the development is not desirable to members of the public. In any such case, upon receiving a report of any alleged breach, the team will investigate the facts to determine the scale of the breach and whether it is expedient to take enforcement action.
Your email refers to ‘imminent works’ however Planning Enforcement do not monitor the implementation of development and compliance, therefore cannot investigate further, or take action based on the current circumstances of this matter.
I trust this clarifies the planning enforcement position for you.”
Planning Compliance Officer, North Herts Council. Reproduced in full. For context: the base was sunk on 26 August (see the photos); there was no 18m pole on site on 27 August.
Subject: Re: FW: 26/00508/EC – Hawthorn Close – request for clarification following review
I am following up on my previous email, to which I have not yet received a response, and in the light of the Planning Compliance Officer’s email received today. I appreciate that you may have a considerable workload. However, the questions raised remain important, particularly given the Council’s significant change of position regarding whether Prior Approval is required for the proposed 18m telecommunications mast at Hawthorn Close.
There is also a further matter on which I would now be grateful for clarification. In your email you advised that, having checked the drawings, the existing mast has a width of 0.21m and the proposed replacement mast has a width of 0.35m. On those figures, increasing 0.21m by two-thirds produces exactly 0.35m. The proposed structure therefore appears to sit at the relevant dimensional threshold, rather than comfortably within it, making the accuracy and basis of those measurements particularly important.
Could you therefore please provide:
I have also now received an email regarding enforcement case 26/00147/1ENF. It confirms that Enforcement visited the site on 27 August and, based upon what was present at that time, found no breach of planning control, and that the case is now being considered for closure. Since the proposed 18m mast had not been installed at the time of that inspection, it would appear that the site visit could not have established whether the structure ultimately installed complies with the dimensions upon which the Council’s present permitted-development conclusion depends. Given that the proposed width appears to be precisely at the calculated two-thirds threshold, rather than below it, this makes access to the original technical information and confirmation of the exact measurements particularly important.
Could you also please confirm that, notwithstanding the proposed closure of 26/00147/1ENF, should the structure subsequently installed exceed the relevant permitted-development dimensions — including the width upon which the Council’s present conclusion is based — residents would still be entitled to report this to Planning Enforcement for investigation?
I would also be grateful for a response to the substantive questions in my previous email, in particular: the precise provision(s) of Part 16, Schedule 2 of the GPDO upon which the Council is relying; the legal basis upon which the existing 0.21m lamp-post/structure is being treated as an existing “mast” for the purposes of the alteration/replacement provisions; confirmation that the 0.21m measurement represents the legally relevant “original width of the mast” for the purposes of the two-thirds calculation; and an explanation of what specifically changed in the Council’s interpretation, and what prompted the review which resulted in the reversal of its earlier written position.
I fully appreciate that planning legislation can be complex. However, residents have now received two directly contradictory interpretations from the Council, and the revised interpretation removes the opportunity for residents to participate through a Prior Approval consultation process. In those circumstances, I believe it is entirely reasonable for residents to be provided with the precise statutory basis and technical evidence upon which the Council’s revised conclusion depends, particularly where the stated dimensions appear to leave no margin below the relevant threshold.
If any of the requested drawings, specifications or technical documents cannot be supplied, please could you explain the basis upon which they are being withheld and advise whether they should instead be requested formally under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I would be grateful for a response as soon as reasonably possible.
Kind regards
Subject: Re: FW: 26/00147/1ENF & 26/00508/EC – Hawthorn Close – request for clarification following review
Dear [Planning Compliance Officer],
I am writing further regarding the 18m telecommunications mast at Hawthorn Close, which has now been erected, and the continuing concerns of residents regarding this development.
Although the mast is now in place, we understand that this does not necessarily bring the planning and enforcement issues to an end. There are documented cases elsewhere in the country where telecommunications equipment has subsequently been required to be removed following enforcement action.
We therefore believe it is important that the Council now establishes whether the development as actually constructed, rather than simply as shown on the operator’s submitted drawings, complies with every relevant limitation and condition necessary for it to constitute Permitted Development under Schedule 2, Part 16 of the GPDO.
1. EE’s due diligence and consideration of alternative sites
We would like to establish what due diligence and site-selection assessment EE undertook before deciding that Hawthorn Close remained the appropriate location for such a substantially larger replacement mast.
The Government’s Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England addresses site searches, consideration of potential options, the use of existing sites, masts and structures where appropriate, and the importance of minimising the visual impact of telecommunications infrastructure.
Could the Council therefore please establish:
We appreciate that EE describes this as a replacement installation rather than an entirely new telecommunications site. We are not suggesting that EE necessarily had to prove that no conceivable alternative existed. However, we believe it is entirely reasonable to establish what site-selection exercise was actually undertaken and what evidence exists that alternative and less intrusive solutions were properly considered.
2. Compliance of the mast actually erected with Permitted Development rights
We would also ask the Council to inspect and verify the development as actually constructed, rather than relying solely upon plans, measurements or assurances originally supplied by the operator. In particular, please confirm:
This is particularly important because the operator previously stated that the replacement would be “not more than two-thirds wider” than the existing structure. From the drawings previously supplied, the dimensions appeared extremely close to the relevant limit rather than comfortably within it. We would therefore like the Council to establish the actual measurements of what has now been constructed on site.
3. The Council’s change of position
Residents remain concerned about the Council’s change of position during this matter. We were initially advised that prior approval was required and the matter subsequently involved Planning Enforcement. The Council later changed its interpretation and concluded that the proposal constituted Permitted Development and that prior approval was not required.
Given that the mast is now standing, we would be grateful for a clear written explanation identifying the precise statutory provisions upon which that revised conclusion was based. More importantly, we would like confirmation that the Council will assess the completed development itself against those provisions.
The question is no longer simply whether EE’s proposal appeared on paper to fall within Permitted Development rights. The question is whether the structure that has actually been erected at Hawthorn Close complies with those rights in every relevant respect.
4. Enforcement case 26/00147/1ENF
Could you please confirm whether enforcement case 26/00147/1ENF remains open and advise us of its current status? If it has been closed, we would be grateful for the date on which it was closed, the decision reached and the Council’s reasons and evidence supporting that decision. If it remains open, please confirm what matters are currently being investigated and whether an officer will inspect and, where necessary, measure the completed installation.
5. Removal of telecommunications masts after installation
We understand that the fact that a telecommunications mast has already been erected does not necessarily place it beyond subsequent planning enforcement if a breach of planning control is established.
Of particular interest is the Broadford Road/Dalkeith Grove, Bolton case (Appeal Ref: APP/N4205/C/24/3347005). In that case Bolton Council issued an enforcement notice concerning a telecommunications mast and associated equipment. Following a site visit in June 2025, the Planning Inspector dismissed the operator’s appeal, upheld the enforcement notice and refused planning permission. The enforcement requirements included removal of the mast and associated equipment and restoration of the land.
Of particular relevance to Hawthorn Close was the Inspector’s consideration of the mast within its residential surroundings, including its relationship with nearby bungalows. The Inspector considered the substantial height and width of the mast compared with surrounding street furniture and concluded that the development caused unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and to residential outlook.
We fully appreciate that every planning and enforcement case turns upon its own facts and that the Bolton decision does not establish that the Hawthorn Close mast is unlawful. Nevertheless, it demonstrates an important point: the fact that telecommunications infrastructure has already been erected does not necessarily prevent subsequent enforcement action and removal.
That is particularly pertinent at Hawthorn Close, where an 18m telecommunications mast has now been erected amongst predominantly approximately 5m-high bungalows, following the refusal of the previous 20m mast proposal. There have also been other cases in which councils have pursued enforcement concerning telecommunications infrastructure and equipment has subsequently been removed or enforcement notices upheld.
We therefore ask the Council to confirm whether, if its investigation establishes that the Hawthorn Close mast as constructed falls outside the applicable Permitted Development rights, fails to satisfy an applicable limitation or condition, or otherwise constitutes a breach of planning control, enforcement action requiring alteration or removal remains available to the Council.
6. Visual impact and whether a less intrusive solution was reasonably practicable
We are also aware of the wider expectation that telecommunications operators should seek to minimise the impact of their apparatus upon visual amenity so far as reasonably practicable. This makes the question of EE’s site-selection process particularly important.
We would therefore like to know whether another technically viable location or configuration was considered which could have provided the required network coverage while having materially less impact upon the surrounding residential environment. If alternatives were considered and rejected, we would like to understand the technical or other reasons for those decisions.
7. Considerable and continuing community concern
We would also like to emphasise that these concerns are not those of one individual. Over the past two years, more than 250 signatures have been collected from residents opposing telecommunications mast proposals at this location, demonstrating the strength and sustained nature of local concern.
A residents’ group has been formed and a dedicated website has been established documenting the history of the matter, including relevant correspondence, photographs, planning information and developments at the site: https://hawthornclose.com. We would encourage the Council to view the website, as it provides a comprehensive record of residents’ concerns and the events leading up to the erection of the current 18m mast.
We fully appreciate that the number of signatures does not determine whether a development is lawful or benefits from Permitted Development rights. However, this considerable level of concern over two consecutive years demonstrates why residents believe the siting, scale and visual impact of telecommunications infrastructure at this particular location deserve proper scrutiny.
8. What residents are asking the Council to do
We are not simply asking the Council to reconsider the planning merits of a mast which has already been erected. We are asking for a properly evidenced investigation into:
Residents have spent a considerable amount of time trying to understand how such a substantial structure could ultimately be erected in this residential location without the normal prior-approval process, particularly following the refusal of the previous 20m mast proposal.
Now that the mast is standing, we believe residents are entitled to a clear and properly evidenced answer as to whether what has actually been constructed is lawful in precisely the form and location in which it now stands, and whether EE properly considered whether a less intrusive alternative location or solution was available.
Given the history of this matter, the Council’s earlier change of position and the considerable level of continuing community concern, I would be grateful for a substantive response addressing each of the points above, rather than a general confirmation that the development benefits from Permitted Development rights.
Kind regards
Subject: Freedom of Information Request – Telecommunications Mast, Hawthorn Close, Hitchin
Dear Freedom of Information Team,
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request
I am writing to request information concerning the telecommunications mast situated on land adjacent to 53 Hawthorn Close, Hitchin, relating to Council reference 26/00508/EC. Given the recent replacement of the previous mast with an 18m telecommunications mast, I would be grateful if the Council could provide the following information:
1. Ownership of the land
Please confirm whether North Hertfordshire Council owns the land upon which the telecommunications mast and/or its associated cabinets and equipment are situated. If North Hertfordshire Council does not own the land, please confirm, if held by the Council, which individual, organisation or public authority owns it.
2. Financial payments to the Council
If North Hertfordshire Council owns the land, please confirm whether the Council receives any:
arising from the telecommunications equipment at this location.
3. Payments received during the previous five years
Please provide the amount received by the Council in relation to telecommunications apparatus at this site for each of the previous five financial years, preferably broken down by year and type of payment. If payments have been made to another Council-owned body or received indirectly on behalf of the Council, please include those amounts where this information is held.
4. Payments over the next five years
Please provide details of any contracted, agreed or projected payments for the next five financial years relating to the telecommunications equipment at this site, including the annual amount where this is recorded. If payments are subject to review, indexation or another mechanism rather than being fixed, please provide details of that arrangement.
5. Effect of the new 18m mast
Please confirm whether replacement of the previous telecommunications installation with the new 18m mast has resulted, or will result, in:
If so, please provide the amount concerned.
6. Who makes the payments
Please identify the company or organisation responsible for making payments in respect of this site and, where different, the telecommunications operator(s) benefiting from the agreement.
7. Agreement governing the site
Please provide:
I appreciate that the Council may consider it necessary to redact genuinely confidential information from the agreement. If any information is withheld, please identify the relevant exemption relied upon.
8. Total financial benefit
Finally, if this information can be determined from the Council’s records, please confirm the total amount received during the previous five financial years and the total amount contracted or expected to be received over the next five financial years in relation to telecommunications equipment at this particular site.
Given the considerable local interest surrounding this development, I would be grateful if the Council could provide the actual figures held rather than simply confirming that a commercial arrangement exists.
This FOI request relates solely to the land ownership and financial arrangements associated with the telecommunications site and is separate from the outstanding planning and enforcement matters concerning the mast.
Kind regards
Our Ref: IRCM-00001052 · 21st September 2026
“This is an acknowledgement of your request for information received on 21st September 2026 quoted below: [the request is quoted in full — see email 26]
Your request has been logged and allocated the reference number IRCM00001052, please include this reference number on all correspondence related to this request.
You will receive a response within 20 working days from the day after we received your request, as defined by the Act subject to exemptions, exceptions, or the need to consult third parties.
Further details on how the Council processes information requests are available on our website: Freedom of Information requests | North Herts Council. Please find attached the FOI/EIR obligations under the legislation. Our Personal Information and Privacy Notice (UKGDPR) | North Herts Council explains how we handle your personal data and your rights.
If you have any queries about the process or your request, please do not hesitate to contact me.”
Information Officer, North Herts Council. Reproduced in full apart from the quoted request. Twenty working days from Tuesday 22 September is Monday 19 October 2026.
Subject: 26/00147/1ENF and 26/00508/EC – Report of apparent breach: mast as built measures approximately 0.51m wide, not 0.35m
Note: the 0.51m in the subject line was an early estimate that treated the base as round. The measurements that count are the witnessed ones in the body: 0.37m and 0.39m.
Dear [Planning Compliance Officer],
I am writing to update my previous correspondence concerning the newly installed 18-metre telecommunications mast adjacent to 53 Hawthorne Close, Hitchin, and to request an urgent review of its compliance with permitted development requirements.
Councillor Keith Hoskins attended the site on 22 September 2026 and witnessed the following measurements:
Width of the installed mast
The drawing provided shows the existing mast with a width of 0.21 metres and the proposed replacement with a base width of 0.35 metres (with clear red arrows suggesting maximum width). An increase of two-thirds on 0.21 metres gives 0.35 metres exactly.
The witnessed measurements of the installed base enclosure exceed 0.35 metres in both directions. The larger measurement, 0.39 metres, is 4 centimetres above that figure and approximately 85.7% greater than 0.21 metres.
These measurements concern the enclosure forming the base of the new mast, rather than the separate equipment cabinets positioned alongside it.
Please arrange an independent site inspection and confirm:
Position of the new mast and retention of the existing pole
The measured distance between the two poles is approximately 6.8 metres. We understand that the existing pole will remain and be converted to a lamppost.
Please explain the basis on which the installation qualifies as a replacement mast, taking account of its separate position and the retention of the original pole. In particular, please confirm what telecommunications equipment will be removed from the existing pole and whether the completed arrangement matches the proposal assessed by the Council.
I appreciate that distance and retention of the pole do not, by themselves, settle whether this is a replacement. However, these circumstances require a clear explanation, including whether the installation should instead have been assessed as a new mast requiring prior approval.
Enforcement investigation
Given this further evidence, witnessed by Councillor Hoskins, please keep enforcement case 26/00147/1ENF open pending verification of the dimensions and siting. If the case has already been closed, please treat this email as a request to reopen it in light of the updated evidence.
Residents previously raised concerns that the proposed width was at the threshold relied upon to dispense with prior approval. We now ask the Council to address the actual installed measurements and provide a reasoned written response, rather than relying solely on the dimensions shown in the notification drawings.
Please confirm when an inspection will take place, who will undertake it, and when we can expect the Council’s findings. If a breach is established, please explain what steps the Council proposes to take.
I will attach photographs with this email to support the measurements and concerns outlined above. I would also welcome the opportunity for residents and Councillor Hoskins to attend the inspection.
Kind regards · on behalf of Hawthorn Close and local residents. Photographs of the measurements are shown above.
Subject: Follow-up on mast measurements at Hawthorne Close
Dear Keith,
Thank you again for coming to Hawthorne Close on 22 September to meet with [another resident], myself and [a family member] to witness the measurements of the new mast. I appreciated your time and support.
You mentioned that you would contact the council about the measurements and copy me into your correspondence. I haven’t received anything yet, so I wondered whether you have had a chance to email them.
In particular, I would be grateful to know whether the council has considered the measured width of the mast, the approximately 6.8-metre separation between the two poles, and the fact that the existing mast is to remain as a lamppost.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Subject: Hawthorn Close - communications mast
“Morning both,
I’ve been following this correspondence ever since I first raised it back in March; I have visited the site on three separate occasions – when it was first mooted, as works began and more recently now that the installation has taken place.
Given that I consider the site to be inappropriate but realising that current legislation does not appear to give us a great deal of room to manoeuvre, I wonder how we can ensure that impacts are mitigated. I attended when residents checked the measurements and it did seem that these may need to be officially checked to see whether the post conforms to the amended proposal.
If you decide to come and take a look, I would be very happy to meet up so that I can better understand how the legislation works and what options are open to councils.
Once again, my concern is the overbearing nature of this installation in this short and narrow residential area.”
Covering note to residents: “I await the response to your recent email and to this one that I have sent (see below). I understand that [the Planning Compliance Officer] has left the Council unfortunately so will be interested to see who picks this up and get their opinion.”
Cllr Keith Hoskins, Hitchin Priory ward, North Herts Council. Reproduced in full; councillors are named as public office-holders.
Subject: Re: report of apparent breach 26/00147/1ENF and 26/00508/EC
“Thank you for your email requesting the reopening of case reference: 26/00147/1ENF, Land Adjacent To 53, Hawthorn Close, Hitchin, Hertfordshire.
We will be reopening the case, referenced above, to investigate your report of non-compliance with permitted development regulations.
However, there are questions asked in your email that Planning Enforcement are unable to investigate or answer; Openreach may be able to assist and can be contacted here: Help for Homeowners and Tenants | Openreach.
In respect of your queries relating to the interpretation of the legislation and the basis for the decision-making, this is outside of the remit of the planning enforcement investigation. I will forward your email on to [the Development Management & Conservation Manager]; you will receive further comment if there is anything to add to the responses you have already received.
We do understand your concerns, however, please be aware that priority is given to investigating urgent breaches in progress, such as unlawful works in progress to listed buildings or protected trees. Therefore, the erection of the mast will be investigated in due course but is not considered as urgent.
Please could you also note that the Planning Enforcement Service is responsible for investigating and resolving matters where breaches of planning control are directly alleged and when the planning harm arising from alleged breaches are clearly stated. In cases where harmful breaches are identified, we will aim to resolve them, however, unfortunately, we do not have resources to visit sites simply to check whether development comply with the planning regulations. The reason I mention this is to help with understanding on the purpose and remit of our planning enforcement investigations.
As we are currently under-resourced, reallocation and investigation may take longer than expected as we prioritise our cases to make the best use of time, travel and caseloads. Our Officer, [the Planning Compliance Officer], with whom you were previously liaising, has now moved on from NHDC and therefore the case will be reassigned to another officer shortly. The information you provided will be available to the assigned officer. Please understand that we do not disclose the site visits with reporters; this is to protect the safety of our Officers, as public scrutiny while thy carry out their work is inappropriate and can feel intimidating. However, please be assured that we will update you once the investigating officer has reviewed the details from their visit.
We are grateful for your patience in waiting for updates, which will restart under the same reporting protocols in line with your previous Acknowledgement Letter.”
Technical Support Officer, Planning Enforcement, North Herts Council. Reproduced in full.
Subject: Re: report of apparent breach 26/00147/1ENF and 26/00508/EC
Dear [Technical Support Officer],
Thank you for confirming that enforcement case 26/00147/1ENF will be reopened and reassigned, and that all the information and evidence already provided will be available to the investigating officer. We very much appreciate this.
We note your comments that the case is not considered urgent for enforcement purposes. We appreciate that the Council has to prioritise its workload; however, residents remain concerned that the installation has now been completed despite there being specific questions about whether the mast as erected complies with permitted development requirements. We would therefore be grateful if the investigation could be progressed as promptly as resources allow.
We fully understand and respect the need to protect officers carrying out site visits. However, we would hope that one or two residents could attend, as well as councillor Keith Hoskins, solely to assist the officer by identifying precisely where our measurements were taken and explaining the apparent discrepancies. This would ensure that the same points are being examined and help avoid any misunderstanding. We would therefore be grateful if this could be agreed in advance with the investigating officer, at a time convenient to them.
We would also be grateful if [the Development and Conservation Manager] could specifically address our outstanding question as to whether this can properly be regarded as a replacement mast rather than a new mast. The new mast has been erected approximately 6.8 metres from the existing pole, which is being retained and converted into a lamppost rather than removed. We would like to understand how these circumstances were taken into account when determining which permitted development provisions applied.
You also mention that there are questions in my email which Planning Enforcement is unable to answer and suggest that Openreach may be able to assist. Could you please clarify which specific questions you are referring to? As the installation concerned is an EE telecommunications mast, we are unclear as to why Openreach would be the appropriate organisation to approach.
Thank you again for reopening the case and for forwarding the relevant matters to [the Development and Conservation Manager]. We look forward to hearing from the newly assigned officer in due course.
Kind regards
Subject: RE: report of apparent breach 26/00147/1ENF and 26/00508/EC
“Whether the mast constitutes a replacement mast will form part of the investigation by the Planning Enforcement team. It would not be appropriate for reporters of breaches or interested third parties to be present at a site investigation to avoid any perception of undue influence and therefore potentially adversely affecting any possible subsequent enforcement action. The Planning Enforcement Officers are and will be acting on behalf for the Local Planning Authority and not reporters of possible breaches of planning control.”
Development and Conservation Manager MRTPI, North Herts Council. Reproduced in full. It answers email 32.
Subject: RE: report of apparent breach 26/00147/1ENF and 26/00508/EC
“Dear Ms. [resident], to answer your questions regarding the physical treatment, by which It is inferred that you are interested in the coatings and coverings of the equipment, and the rationale for the designation as a replacement as opposed to a new installation, would be answered by Openreach.
Openreach own and maintain the physical network; cables, fibre, boxes, masts and installations.
Help and support | Openreach
Openreach Complaints Policy | How to Make a Complaint
Openreach also have access to accurate sizes of equipment.
EE is considered a service provider who handle customer accounts for services such as phone and broadband packages.”
Technical Support Officer, Planning Enforcement, North Herts Council. Reproduced in full. For context: Openreach is the part of BT that runs the national fixed-line phone and broadband network. The Council’s own drawing for this mast names EE and H3G (Three) as the operators, through their joint infrastructure company MBNL.
Subject: Re: Report of apparent breach 26/00147/1ENF and 26/00508/EC
Dear [Technical Support Officer],
Thank you for your further response. Having reviewed the documentation relating to the Hawthorn Close installation, we remain unclear why residents are being directed to Openreach, or why we should be expected to pursue that organisation for answers concerning this particular mast.
You stated that: “Physical treatment, by which it is inferred that you are interested in the coatings and coverings of the equipment, and the rationale for the designation as a replacement as opposed to a new installation, would be answered by Openreach.” You also stated: “Openreach own and maintain the physical network; cables, fibre, boxes, masts and installations.”
For clarity, we have reviewed our previous correspondence and cannot identify any occasion on which residents have asked for information concerning the coatings, coverings or physical treatment of the equipment. Our questions have concerned the dimensions and specification of the mast as erected, its conformity with the submitted drawings and permitted development requirements, and the basis on which it has been treated as a replacement rather than a new installation. We would therefore be grateful if you could clarify which specific question or wording in our correspondence led to the inference that we were seeking information about coatings or coverings.
The available records appear to establish that:
If Openreach owns or maintains the physical equipment, that does not explain why residents should be required to establish the relevant facts. The Council is investigating a planning matter and has referred to information obtained from “the operator” when reaching its decision regarding permitted development. It should therefore be able to identify the operator, the source of the information relied upon and the evidence supporting its decision.
Nor is it clear why Openreach would be able to answer whether this installation should be treated as a replacement mast rather than a new installation. That is a planning and evidential issue requiring consideration of the relevant planning records, the previous and current installations, the operator’s submissions, the technical drawings and the applicable permitted-development requirements. It is not simply a question of who owns or maintains the physical infrastructure.
[The Development and Conservation Manager] has also confirmed that whether this installation constitutes a replacement mast will form part of the Planning Enforcement investigation. That is a matter for the Council to investigate and determine using the relevant planning records, operator submissions and technical evidence. Residents should not be expected to establish the answer independently, particularly by approaching an organisation that the Council has not identified as being involved.
If the Council considers Openreach to be the appropriate organisation to answer these questions, it should explain the factual basis for that conclusion and identify the evidence showing Openreach’s involvement with this particular mast. It should also explain why the Council cannot obtain or provide the information itself, given that the issue forms part of its own planning enforcement investigation.
We recognise that residents may contact operators where they have a clear and properly identified concern about an operator’s activities. However, it is the Council’s responsibility to:
Residents should not be required to obtain this information from a third party where the Council itself has relied upon, or referred to, information from an operator. Nor should residents be expected to pursue an organisation that has not been identified in the Council’s records as having any involvement with the installation.
Before directing us to Openreach, please therefore explain:
Could you also please clarify:
There is an important distinction between residents raising concerns and the Council establishing the factual and legal basis for its planning decision. The Council should identify the relevant operator and disclose the evidence on which it relied before asking residents to pursue any third party.
Many thanks for your assistance.
Kind regards
Where it stands (Thu 1 Oct): the 18m mast is up. On 22 September, with Cllr Keith Hoskins present, residents measured its base enclosure at about 0.37m and 0.39m, against 0.35m on the drawing (email 28). The old pole, about 6.8m away, is being kept as a lamppost. Planning Enforcement has reopened case 26/00147/1ENF, though it calls the case not urgent and is reassigning it because the previous officer has left (email 31). The Development and Conservation Manager now says that whether the mast is a replacement at all will form part of that investigation (email 33). That matters because the Council’s 25 August conclusion that no approval was needed treated it as a replacement. Residents and councillors will not be allowed to attend the site visit. Planning Enforcement has also told residents that questions about the replacement designation “would be answered by Openreach” (email 34). Openreach runs BT’s fixed-line network, and the drawings name EE and Three as the operators. Residents have asked the Council to say who it regards as the operator, which organisation gave it the “clarification” it relied on, and to disclose that evidence (email 35). Cllr Hoskins has told officers he considers the site “inappropriate” and the installation “overbearing” (email 30). The Council’s reply to the Freedom of Information request on land ownership and payments is due by Monday 19 October (ref IRCM00001052). Keep photographing the mast from your home and garden, with the date, and upload the pictures.
The record of what’s happening, day by day. Taken anything at Hawthorn Close — contractors, vans, signs, the works? Add it here. Photos go to the residents’ record and may be shared with the Council, EE and the press.
To North Herts Council and the mobile operator:
We object to an 18-metre mast next to 53 Hawthorn Close without Prior Approval and proper consultation.
We ask the Council to stop any work that starts without approval, and to refuse any application — as it refused the 20m mast in 2025.
We ask the operator to withdraw the plan and find a site away from people’s homes.
Only mast news: when they apply, when you can object, if workmen turn up. Nothing else.
Photos, letters, questions, offers of help — all welcome.
Tap a heading to open it. Everything is from the Council’s planning register or letters from the Council.
The pole standing there now went through the Prior Approval procedure itself: an application to install a 9.7m Phase 4 monopole with integral streetlight and a cabinet, removing an earlier lamppost monopole. Determined “Prior Approval Not Required” on 17 August 2016. It is the most recent approval record for this mast — the record the Order’s “original width” refers to.
Notice to install two cabinets on the same land. Council objected, 14 Sep 2022.
EE applied for Prior Approval to replace the existing 9m structure with a 20m monopole and extra cabinets. Neighbours were consulted. Refused 27 June 2025 for scale, siting, appearance and visual impact.
The operator told the Council it would replace the existing structure with an 18m mast under “permitted development” — meaning no application and no consultation. The Council logged it as “No Objection” on 31 March.
A resident wrote to the Council. It replied in writing that Prior Approval is required and has not been sought, told the operator so, and said works without it would be unlawful and would trigger an enforcement investigation.
Contractors arrived and the road was closed for works scheduled 24–26 August. Enforcement was alerted at 08:28; a ward councillor visited the site; EE and the local press were put on notice. The Council confirmed at midday that Planning Enforcement was investigating.
The Development and Conservation Manager wrote that the pole is a “replacement mast”, is permitted development under the GPDO, needs no Prior Approval, and that the Council can take no action — the opposite of its own written position five days earlier. The same day, the Planning Enforcement Team formally opened case 26/00147/1ENF with an investigating officer. Residents asked the manager, in writing, for the width measurements, the calculation, the land-status determination and an explanation of why the advice changed (email 16).
On 26 August the pole’s base was sunk into the verge, the hole filled and the cones removed. On 27 August the Enforcement Team visited the site — with no 18m pole there to measure.
The manager sends a drawing extract giving the existing structure as 0.21m wide and the proposed pole as 0.35m — an increase of precisely two thirds — and says 18m is under the 20m limit for a mast in the highway. The 20 August position is now an “informal officer view”. Residents ask for the statutory provision relied on, why a 0.21m column counts as the existing mast, whether 0.21m is the legally relevant “original width”, and what changed (email 22). Case 26/00147/1ENF has vanished from the public register.
The Planning Compliance Officer says enforcement cases are only published once a notice is served, that the 27 August visit found no breach on the information then available, that the case “will now be considered for closure”, and that Enforcement “do not monitor the implementation of development and compliance”. Residents reply asking for the full scaled drawings, exact millimetres, the points measured and the maker’s specification, and for confirmation that the built pole can still be reported (emails 23–24).
The pole is erected on the base sunk on 26 August. No officer has visited since 27 August, when there was nothing to measure, and residents were never consulted at any stage.
Residents write to the Planning Compliance Officer, copied to the MP (email 25). They ask the Council to inspect and measure the mast as built — height, widest point including antenna supports, and the increase over the pole it replaced; to name the provisions of Part 16 it relies on; to confirm the status of 26/00147/1ENF; to establish what alternative sites EE considered; and to confirm that alteration or removal remains available if the mast falls outside permitted development. They cite a Bolton case in which an inspector upheld a notice requiring a mast among bungalows to be removed.
Residents ask the Council who owns the land under the mast and its cabinets; whether the Council receives rent, a licence fee, a wayleave or any other payment for the equipment; the amounts for each of the last five financial years and the next five; whether the new 18m mast changes those payments; who pays; and for a copy of the agreement. The Council acknowledges the request the same day. It has 20 working days to reply (emails 26–27).
With Cllr Keith Hoskins present, residents measure the base enclosure of the new mast at about 0.37m and 0.39m, against 0.35m on the drawing, and the gap between the old and new poles at about 6.8m. The old pole is understood to be staying as a lamppost. Residents ask for an independent inspection and for the enforcement case to be kept open or reopened (email 28).
Cllr Keith Hoskins, who has visited the site three times, tells officers he considers the site inappropriate, that the measurements may need to be officially checked, and that his concern is “the overbearing nature of this installation in this short and narrow residential area” (email 30).
Planning Enforcement reopens 26/00147/1ENF to investigate the report that the mast does not comply with permitted development, but calls it not urgent and says the team is under-resourced; the case is to be reassigned because the previous officer has left. Residents ask to show the new officer where they measured (emails 31–32).
The Development and Conservation Manager says whether the mast constitutes a replacement will form part of the enforcement investigation — the question the Council’s 25 August permitted-development conclusion rested on. Residents and councillors may not attend the site investigation (email 33).
Planning Enforcement says the reasons for treating the mast as a replacement “would be answered by Openreach”, which it says owns “masts and installations”, and calls EE “a service provider”. The drawings name EE and Three, through MBNL. Residents reply asking who the Council regards as the operator, which organisation supplied the “clarification” behind its August decision, and for the evidence it relied on (emails 34–35).
Mobile companies can put up some equipment without full planning permission. For a new mast they must first ask the Council to approve where it goes and what it looks like: the Council writes to neighbours, puts up a notice and can say no — which is what happened to the 20m proposal in 2025. The Council now says this 18m mast counts as a “replacement” slim and short enough to skip that step. Residents are asking it to show that with measurements of what was actually built.
No. A mast that turns out not to be permitted development can still be enforced against. In June 2025 a planning inspector upheld Bolton Council’s enforcement notice against a mast put up without permission on a grass verge in a street of bungalows: the operator had to remove the mast and cabinets and replant the grass. The inspector found that, “given its substantial height and width”, it was “an intrusive feature which is harmful to the outlook” of the neighbouring home (appeal APP/N4205/C/24/3347005). Every case turns on its own facts, and Bolton does not show that the Hawthorn Close mast is unlawful — here the Council says the mast is permitted development. That is exactly why the measurements of what was built, and the questions the Council has not yet answered, matter.
It was a notice, not an application — the Council wasn’t being asked to approve anything and nobody was consulted. On 20 August the Council said in writing that an 18m mast does need Prior Approval; on 25 August it reversed that, calling the mast a “replacement” that is permitted development.
Part 16 of the General Permitted Development Order lets an operator replace an existing mast without Prior Approval if the new one stays under the height limit (20m for a mast in a highway) and within a width allowance. For a mast under a metre wide, Prior Approval is needed where the replacement “would, when altered or replaced, exceed the original width of the mast by two thirds”. “Width” is measured at the widest point, excluding antennas but including anything that supports them. “Original width” means the width approved by the most recent Prior Approval given for that mast — for this pole, the 2016 determination 16/01537/1TD. The Order is on legislation.gov.uk: paragraph A.2(3)(d)(ii) for masts in a highway, A.2(3)(c)(iia) for other unprotected land, and the definitions in A.4.
So far there has been none: the Council treated the 18m mast as permitted development. If that conclusion fails, and an application or Prior Approval is required after all, the Council can only consider where it is and what it looks like. So say, in your own words:
Individual letters count more than copies. Health worries about signals are not something the Council can refuse on, so lead with size and siting. Send objections via the planning register or to planning.control@north-herts.gov.uk.
Not on its own, and the mast is now up. But it shows the Council, our councillors, the MP and EE how many people care — which matters while residents are asking the Council to measure what was built and to say what alternatives were considered. Sign up above and we’ll tell you what happens.
Residents of Hawthorn Close, Cranborne Avenue and the immediate vicinity. Not the Council, not a political party. Spot a mistake? Email contact@hawthornclose.com.