Meeting documents

1 THE ISSUE

1.1 The Council has two controlling powers in relation to the installation of mobile phone masts and allied installations. The first is as a landowner, and the second is through the planning system. It is important in the consideration of any policy to separate out these two aspects:

(a) The Council as a landowner has control over any form of development on their land.

(b) The Council as a Planning Authority relies on National Government Guidance with regards to the foundation of local policies and the determination of applications. Landownership is not material to these considerations.

1.2 At present there is no Council policy with regards to landownership, but there is clear and recent Government Guidance on the planning issues, as well as existing policies within the adopted and emerging Local Plan.

1.3 In November the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister issued a Planning Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development, which concentrates on procedures in general as well as issues around siting and design. This has previously been circulated to the Executive.

1.4 On the 25th November the Corporate Issues and Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Panel met and considered the view of a wide range of interested parties who had given evidence and were subject to questioning. The Panel subsequently highlighted 12 points to recommend to the Executive (see Appendix 1 page 13 and 14). The Panel had previously received a briefing paper on the planning issues (Appendix 2) including the background to this subject, the current planning controls, the Government's policy, the local context and health issues.

1.5 Four areas were highlighted for further research:

(a) The pre-application stage and the operators engagement with the public, Parish Councils etc.

(b) The consideration of proposals in environmentally sensitive areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

(c) An assessment of other local authorities' local plan policies relating to telecommunications.

(d) Latest appeal decisions and case law, particularly relating to health.

2 RECOMMENDATION

(a) The Executive consider the recommendations of the Corporate Issues and Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Panel which relates to both planning and property issues.

(b) The Executive require with regard to the specific planning issues detailed in the following report:

(i) that applicants should provide clear evidence at the registration stage that they have carried out full and proper pre-application discussion with all relevant parties, and submit details with their application of the issues raised through this discussion and how they have been taken account of (see Panel recommendation 6 and 7);

(ii) that a robust appraisal be made of masts in environmentally sensitive areas and the Green Belt, and that operators be asked to submit a proper analysis of their consideration of alternative locations (see Panel recommendation 3);

(iii) that the criteria-based policy in the Local Plan be endorsed, and the Oxford City Council approach be referred to the Local Plan Project Group for consideration (see Panel recommendation 4 and 5);

(iv) that applicants should submit a Health and Radiation Impact Analysis (H.R.I.A.) with all applications and the Local Plan Project Group be asked to consider the insertion of an appropriate clause in the criteria based policy relating to telecommunications within the Local Plan.

(v) that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel's recommendations 8, 10 and 11 be endorsed and implemented. The timescales for the production of the map being subject to available resources.

(vi) The Executive Member for Transportation and Planning Policy considers that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel's recommendation to write to the Government raising the concerns identified in the Panel's Report (paragraph 4 - Health) should be supported and accordingly that he be asked to do so on behalf of the Council.

(c) The Executive ask the Head of Planning to write to the Government expressing concern that the Council is not permitted to introduce exclusion zones for the siting of masts.

(d) The Executive, with regards to the land ownership issues, require, in line with the issues raised by Corporate Issues and Partnership Overview and Scrutiny Panel:

(i) that the Council, as landowner, accept no new masts or antennae on Council-owned property on or around school sites in Bath and North East Somerset; and

(ii) that the Council, as landowner, accept no new masts or antennae on other Council property near concentrations of residential housing or other locations in Bath and North East Somerset where people congregate frequently and for long periods of time, and there is clear and reasonable concern from the people affected.

(iii) that in all other cases consideration be given, as part of the decision-making process, to any reduction in visual amenity that will result;

(iv) that replacement of existing equipment with enhanced equipment be permitted only where there is no significant increase in emissions.

3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 The recommendations set out in (d) above would result in a loss of income to the Council which could otherwise have been derived from the granting of agreements to site telecommunications equipment on Council property.

4. THE REPORT

4.1 The following are the findings on the four issues and a suggested approach:

(a) Pre-application

The Government make it clear that pre-application discussions should be carried out between operators and local planning authorities on a specific development proposal, and should be set in the context of the operators strategy for telecommunications development in the area. The strategy should be in the shape of rollout plans, to be discussed annually with the Local Planning Authority. Discussions should also be carried out between operators and other organisations with an interest in the proposed development such as English Nature, the Countryside Agency, English Heritage, the Highways Agency, local highway authorities, residential groups, Parish Councils and amenity bodies.

The Government also advise that where a mast is to be installed on or near a school or college it is important that operators discuss the proposed development with the relevant body of the school or college concerned before submitting an application for planning permission or prior approval to the Local Planning Authority.

4.2 Whilst the above is only advisory with no statutory requirement it is recommended that the Planning Authority could strongly suggest to the operator prior to registration, that clear evidence should be submitted with the application to show that full pre-application consultation has been carried out, and also details of the operator's response to the view being expressed by the public and other bodies. The Code of Practice refers to the Traffic Light Model for public consultation, which operators are now adopting.

4.3 (b) Environmental Considerations

This particular authority has large Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Belt, Conservation Areas and a World Heritage Site. The Government emphasise the following:

· High priority should be given to the need to safeguard areas of particular environmental importance. In Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty proposals should be sensitively designed and sited, and the developer must demonstrate that there are no suitable alternative locations.

· In Green Belts telecommunications development is likely to be inappropriate unless it maintains openness. Inappropriate development may proceed only if very special circumstances are demonstrated which clearly outweigh the degree of harm to the Green Belt. The lack of a suitable alternative site that would meet the needs of network coverage or capacity might be considered as very special circumstances.

4.4 This Council has refused masts based on impact on the environment and openness of this Green Belt and these have been successfully defended on appeal. It is considered that this Council should ensure a very robust appraisal of masts in these environmentally sensitive areas and ensure the operator's submit a proper analysis of their consideration of alternative locations.

4.5 (c) Local Plan Policies

The Government's advice to planning authorities regarding Local Plan policies is quite clear. In certain circumstances a planning authority may allocate particular sites for major telecommunication developments such as tall masts so as to encourage site sharing. Otherwise plans should normally include criteria-based policies to guide telecommunications development where sites other than those identified in the Plan are proposed. Criteria should be flexible enough to allow for the efficient development of the network and the demands imposed by the technology. The policies in the current emerging plan are detailed in Appendix 3. It can be seen from these that the criteria approach is consistent with Government advice.

4.6 Research into other local authorities ' local plan policies have not revealed any alternative approach to this. Suggestions relating to policies detailing a minimum distance from existing development or exclusion zones, have been put forward, but have not found favour with the Government, and would certainly raise a challenge from G.O.S.W. and telecommunication operators.

It is therefore advised that the criteria approach embodied in the Local Plan should be endorsed.

4.7 (d) Health

The Government's approach to health considerations are touched upon in the attached briefing notes. Further research on this issue has been carried out, including examining in detail the most recent appeal decisions where health has been put forward as a reason for refusal.

4.8 Earlier this year an Inspector considered three proposals for T.E.T.R.A. masts in the Stroud District Council area. One of the sites was close to a school and was the subject of strong local representations regarding health. The objectors put forward detailed technically based arguments at the Inquiry but the Inspector concluded:

"In addition to the clear and up-to-date advice in PPG8 regarding the approach to be taken to the perceived health risks when determining planning applications for telecommunications development, the evidence in those cases regarding anticipated exposure levels and the specific circumstances of the appeal site lead one to conclude that there is no justification in any of the cases for withdrawing planning permission on the basis of the perceived risks to human health."

4.9 The Inspector also awarded costs against the Authority on the basis that the decisions were not reasonable. He emphasised that the reason for refusal, namely the perceived health risks of the proposals is specifically addressed by the advice in PPG8 and they failed to follow that advice without providing convincing reasons for not doing so. This was because the estimated emissions were well within the I.C.N.I.R.P. guidelines (see attached briefing note).

4.10 A local resident subsequently attempted to quash the consent through the Courts on the basis that the Inspector's decision failed to give enough weight to public anxiety about a possible radiation hazard. In late November this year the High Court Judge rejected the challenge and ruled that the Inspector had acted properly in following the advice in PPG8.

4.11 The most recent appeal decision available (2nd October, 2002) is in Stafford. In addressing health and safety considerations raised by a local residents group the Inspector noted that the emission of non-iodising radiation for the mast would be well within internationally agreed guidelines. Although the fear of adverse effects might be far greater than any actual effects, the Inspector judged that there was no basis for rejecting the scheme on health and safety grounds.

4.12 It is clear that the Government's Inspectors are basing their decisions on the detailed advice on health contained in PPG8. In short if the proposals meet the I.C.N.I.R.P. guidelines, the Government is quite clear that they should not be rejected on health or perceived health grounds.

4.13 Notwithstanding the above, it is clear that the applicants should include clear statements with all applications that when operational they will meet these guidelines. It is important that the Planning Authority insist that they be submitted at the outset in order to allow the public to have access to this information. Through research, it has been found that Oxford City Council are suggesting that there should be a Health and Radiation Impact Analysis (H.R.I.A.) submitted with all applications which would provide full information on the expected microwave radiation from the proposed equipment. The requirement has been embodied in their First Draft Deposit Local Plan. This same approach could be adopted by this Authority.

4.14 Members of the Council and many residents are unhappy with the Government's ruling on the health issue. They feel that the case is not proven and that there is serious concern over the health aspects of mobile phone masts, especially where placed near people.

Whilst the Council as a planning authority must abide by the Government's planning guidelines, these do not apply to the Council as land-owner. The Council may wish to ensure that masts are not placed near concentrations of people, i.e. residential areas of places like schools where people congregate for long periods of time, and where there is clear concern amongst the people affected.