Meeting documents

31 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Convenor welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained that the Panel would listen to and question various witnesses, including service providers, planners, an advisor on radiation emissions and a representative of a local action group. The Panel would consider all the issues raised when preparing its recommendations.

32 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Committee Administrator drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the Agenda.

33 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made.

34 TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CONVENOR

There were no items of urgent business.

35 ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC OR COUNCILLORS - TO RECEIVE DEPUTATIONS, STATEMENTS, PETITIONS OR QUESTIONS

The Panel received the following statements:

Mrs Liz Fox made a statement advising the Council not to be overruled by central government with regard to the siting of masts. The Head of Planning Services advised the Panel that local planning authorities can make decisions; if the application is refused the applicant has the right to appeal against the decision which will then be determined by the Secretary of State.

Mr Derek McCaig made a statement about objections to an application that Orange had made to erect a mast at Wellsway and raised issues of environmental impact, mast sharing, alternative sites and consultation. He urged the Panel to consider radiation emissions and future scientific research. Nicola Davies, Orange, agreed to meet with Mr McCaig to discuss the issues he had raised.

Mr Mike Phelps made a statement suggesting operators are not complying with the 10 commitments. He stated that proper and wide ranging consultation should occur between operators, local authorities and the public. Dr Clark advised that radio frequencies can interfere with hospital equipment and that the industry should address this problem. Peter Craske (MTAG) added that Deloitte & Touche are undertaking a review of operators' compliance with the 10 commitments which will be published in January 2003.

Mr Tidcombe made a statement about a mast installed on a telephone exchange near his house and asked if there were any gauges to measure radiation from the masts. Jane Evans, 3, clarified that her company's masts were inactive at present.

Ms Tracey Wellington asked if her two children would be exposed to non-ionising radiation from a proposed Tetra mast. Dr Clark explained that he could not provide a 100% assurance, but neither could other scientists, hence Stewart reports precautionary guidance.

Mr Neil Cabell, HTV News, asked if the spire on St Johns Parish Church, Keynsham was a mobile phone mast. Peter Foster, 02 added that this information is available on a public website. The Head of Planning Services said this information could be found on request.

Mr Mark Cartwright asked what compensation operators would give to home owners whose property was devalued by the siting of a mobile phone mast and asked if five operators were needed? Jane Evans, 3, stated that there is no compensation available for the unpopular decision of a planning authority. The Government has licensed five operators to promote competition.

Statements from Mr McCaig and Mr Phelps are available on the minute book.

36 NOTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: MONDAY 28^th OCTOBER 2002

The Panel agreed that the notes of the meeting held on 28^th October 2002 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Convenor.

37 MOBILE PHONE MASTS PRESENTATIONS

The Panel considered submissions from one internal witness, David Davies, Head of Planning Services and several external witnesses, Mr Peter Craske, Mobile Telecoms Advisory Group (MTAG); Jane Evans, 3; Mr Ron Morgan, Saltford Anti-Mast campaign; and Dr Michael Clark, National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).

The witnesses made presentations to the Panel.

Mr David Davies, Head of Planning Services, Bath and North East Somerset Council

The following papers were circulated to the meeting for information:

· Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8) - Telecommunications (Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions)

· Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 - Planning and the Historic Environment (DTLR)

· Appeal Decision by the Government Inspector on the appeal by Medlock Communications Ltd against Stroud District Council regarding the siting of a mobile phone mast

Mr Davies explained what current national planning policies advise Local Authorities to do in the context of Planning Policy Guidance documents produced by government, in particular PPG8 which was published in August 2001 after the Stewart Committee report.

He informed the meeting that the Bath and North East Somerset Council is a unique area which includes two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, over 30 conservation areas, a World Heritage Site, large area of greenbelts and listed buildings all with rigorous planning controls. More masts require planning permission in this district than the norm and the authority has the opportunity to critically assess these applications. Mast and other installation applications have previously been refused by the authority on environmental grounds.

Regarding the health concerns around the siting of mobile phone masts, Mr. Davies explained that the Government's view was that the planning system was not the place to decide health issues. Bath and North East Somerset Council had not refused any mast applications on health grounds, but other Local Authorities had done so. Mr Davies referred to the Appeal Decision against Stroud District Council regarding the siting of TETRA masts. The situation at present based on advice in PPG8 is that if the emissions of non-ionising radiation are within the European Union guidelines, then planning permission should not be refused on health grounds. The inspector dealing with these appeals approved the applications and awarded costs against the Council for using health as a reason for refusal.

Mr Davies referred to the "Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development" which concentrates on process and emphasised the importance of pre-application discussions with all operators and proposed that it would be good practice to meet annually with the operators to discuss forward plans in a strategic way. The Council's Local Plan should also include the policy guidance on the siting of masts and this should be criteria based. Such a policy is in the emerging local plan, but other local plans elsewhere are being looked at to see if there is a better approach.

Ms Jane Evans, National Planning and Environmental Manager, 3.

Jane Evans spoke on behalf of a network operator, 3 (formerly Hutchison 3G) about how the mobile phone networks are evolving. The Panel was informed of the increase, from 5 million to 46 million in UK subscriber demand for mobile phones since 1995. The number of call minutes and text messaging has increased significantly alongside the demand for information, in particular the use of Wireless Application Protocol (WAP). Mobile phones are low powered radio sets which receive and transmit their signals, each base station can only support a limited number of users. New third generation phones (3G) will deliver a wider variety of information. Network operators can camouflage masts and also fund the restoration of buildings to incorporate masts. Micro cells can be positioned in discreet sites to enhance local coverage and masts can be combined with local CCTV schemes and lamp posts. Operators adopt site sharing where ever possible, the 'Sitefinder' Mobile Phone Base Station Database lists mobile phone base stations and their emissions is accessible at http://www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk. Due to the increasing demand for services, capacity of masts is limited, networks are improving the design and quality of base stations and promoting site sharing where environmentally and technically suitable.

Mr Peter Craske, Council Liaison Manager, Mobile Telecoms Advisory Group (MTAG)

Mr Craske spoke on behalf of MTAG, part of the Federation of the Electronics Industry which represents the five mobile telecoms operators (02, 3, Orange, T-Mobile and Vodafone) on issues of planning and health.

Mr Craske identified the increasing public concern about the health risks surrounding masts and base stations, an Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones was established and published its findings in the Stewart Report in May 2000 and concluded: there was no general risk to the health of people living near base stations; some evidence of biological effects at exposures below international guidelines; that gaps in knowledge warranted further scientific research and recommended a precautionary approach.

With regard to how much precaution is appropriate for Mobile Phone base stations? The Stewart Report stated that the `International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection' public exposure guidelines should replace the existing guidelines from the National Radiological Protection Board, companies should operate networks at lowest practical levels consistent with achieving an effective service, exclusion zones and signage should be put at the bottom of bases stations, a national register of base stations and independent audit of bases stations should be established, which has since been done by the Radiocommunications Agency whose web-site can be accessed here, public information leaflets should be available and that the main beam of mast should not fall on a school with out the permission of that school. He referred to the PPG8 which states that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards, this is a matter for central government, and local planning authorities are expected to account for public concerns.

Network operators occupy the middle ground and should; be open minded about science and research; address public concerns; engage stakeholders in dialogue and seek to gain public trust. All operators signed up to in 2001 to the `10 Commitments of Best Practice' which aim to improve consultation, for example with local communities and participate in obligatory pre-roll out and pre-application consultation with local planning authorities, provide more information and more transparency. The objectives are to; screen sites prior to application, public concerns to be handled by operators, increase community involvement in siting process and allow planners to concentrate on planning issues. Schools and colleges must be consulted.

The 10 commitments are in place and operators will continue to meet with stakeholders, evaluate and improve procedures and publish site share figures. Deloitte & Touche will publish a review of the compliance of operators with the 10 commitments in January 2003.

Mr Ron Morgan, Saltford Anti-Mast campaign

Mr Morgan spoke on behalf of the residents of Saltford, Keynsham and the Chew Valley who had been affected by the erection of mobile phone masts at Manor Lane and Wellsway. Mr Morgan outlined health and visual impact of masts as major concerns and indicated that telephone companies had been irresponsible and not consulted local people about mast sites. He referred to the exclusion zone set up by Plymouth Council and recommended that there should be an exclusion zone of 500 metres around residential areas and schools, mast sharing should be obligatory, height increases to masts should not be allowed and companies' annual roll out plans should be publicly available.

Mr Morgan circulated a paper to the Panel by G J Hyland entitled "How Exposure to Mobile Phone Base Station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans".

Dr Michael Clark, Scientific Spokespersons for the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)

Dr Clark presented the scientific evidence regarding the health effects of the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters contained in the report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones and Health (the Stewart Group). Dr Clark explained that radiation is emitted from base stations, however radiation is also emitted from other appliances such as torches; he could not say there was zero risk. Telecommunications companies need to consult the public. Research on at Bristol University showed students were better at arithmetic after using a mobile phone handset. He explained that the minimum signal is directly under a mast, therefore people nearest to the base station may not be exposed to the beam, and exposure to radio waves from sources other than local base station may be similar to that from the local base station. NRPB summaries of measurements near Base stations concluded that exposures are well within guidelines and are not considered hazardous. The risk of use of a handset when driving is the only established health hazard.

Copies of the above presentations by Ms Evans, Mr Craske, Mr Morgan and Dr Clark are available on the minute book.

QUESTIONING AND ANSWER SESSION PANEL & WITNESSES

The Panel asked questions of the witnesses, a summary of the main points are outlined below:

Q. How can future demand be based on previous 5-10 years demand? Can you predict the technology that will be needed in 7-10 years time?

A. Jane Evans, 3 - In part we can estimate future demand. The new range of 3G phones are designed to feature the internet and other information, a new pattern of demand may emerge, for example mobile phones were initially used by businesses for voice calls but expanded to general use. There is no indication that there will be a technology shift with regards to satellite telecommunications it would multiply usage worldwide and there are not enough satellites available.

Q. Can base stations accommodate Broadband technology?

A. Peter Foster, O2 - British Telecom have had discussions with small businesses in North Yorkshire. It is not cost-effective to put Broadband in remote areas, but we will use 3G's with Broadband to get information to people quicker.

Q. With regard to potential long term health risks, will you continue to monitor any adverse effects?

A. Dr Clark, National Radiological Protection Board - Mistakes have been made in other scientific areas for example BSE. When radio waves were discovered in the late 1890's by Marconi, X-rays were discovered in 1885 and used in the Boer War to look at wounds, shortly after doctors and nurses started to die from the effects of the radiation. Radio frequencies have been around for a similar time and there have not been any similar effects. As a scientist I cannot give 100% guarantee that radio frequencies from base stations will not affect people. However, the fear of masts for people is very real.

Q. When were the guidelines reviewed?

A. Dr Clark, NRPB - The NRPB guidelines (1993) are currently being reviewed and a consultation document will be made available.

Q. Would it be a good idea for the five network operators to meet with local planning authorities?

A. Jane Evans, 3 - Yes, we have met with some local authorities after publishing our pre-rollout plan of future mast sites and we are happy to continue to do this.

David Davies, Head of Planning Services - As a local planning authority we welcome pre-application discussions with operators and consider a joint meeting to be good idea. Pre-application consultation by the Operator can result in raised expectations by members of the public.

Q. Can the 10 commitments be changed into commandments?

A. Jane Evans, 3 - Network operators are very committed to meeting the 10 commitments. We welcome people identifying problems as we try to re-educate our agents on the ground. I am not sure that a legal commitment would affect operators as they are already committed to meeting the 10 commitments.

David Davies, Head of Planning - We need to separate good practice from legislation. We need to ensure that applicants follow correct procedures and that operators are signed up to the 10 commitments.

Peter Foster, 02 - It would be helpful to us to have feedback from Local Authorities as some authorities prefer networks to do their own consultation, others prefer that there is no pre-application discussion.

Q. Is there a possibility of the authority keeping a map of all the masts in the area?

A. David Davies, Head of Planning - Yes, this should be relatively easy to do, based on the information submitted by operators, however it would be difficult to estimate the time and resources needed to complete this task.

Q. Which two things would you like to see the Council emphasise in a policy document?

A. Jane Evans, 3 - The industry is very keen to work with LA's to find suitable sites, however people must understand that we are complying with customer demand.

Mr Ron Morgan - It would be useful for policy to include a view on sensitive areas, for example Manchester had a policy which stated no mobile phone masts in areas with schools.

David Davies, Head of Planning - With regard to the issue of exclusion zones, we have to take account of government guidance. Exclusion zones should not be included in local plans.

Q. How can we get over people's fears of `not in my back yard'?

A. Ron Morgan - Exclusion zones would help overcome fear and emphasise that consultation has been done, a zone would be a step in the right direction. I realise that there is a compromise somewhere - forewarned is forearmed. There is a feeling of impotence by not having a say.

Q. Do you have a policy on replacing old masts?

A. Jane Evans, 3 - The current structures that support equipment will stay as masts have a life of 20-25 years improvements and it would be costly to replace all masts. However older masts will be upgraded in the future

Q. Do the 3G phones use more power and create more radiation emissions?

A. Jane Evans, 3 - An increase in the number of masts for 3G phones will be needed to improve coverage, operators are already looking to upgrade and there is an ongoing need to add new masts at best locations. It is difficult to estimate an increase in numbers more than 1 year at a time until 3G phones are launched we can only predict the use. With regard to the power output, I understand that phones will not use more power; however people may be using phones for longer to access information. Professor Bartlett's research concluded that to achieve the minimum output from phones we need to have as many base stations as possible, as phones use less power the nearer they are to a base station.

Q. What is the estimated number of masts needed in the area?

A. Jane Evans, 3 - Existing operators have micro cells, we can only predict demand, and we are not in a position to comment.

Peter Foster, 02 - Micro cells carry 1/6^th of the traffic of a base station. Base stations will comply with ICNIRP levels.

Q. Which masts require planning permission?

A. David Davies, Head of Planning - Masts over 15 metres require planning permission, anything smaller requires the submission of prior notification application to the planning authority. `Diminimus' masts, for example micro cells, do not require any formal application to the planning authority, although the Council has to be informed 28 days before installation. Masts below 15 metres also require planning permission in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and conservation areas. Listed building consent would be required to install a mast on a listed building.

Q. How do you define a mast of 15 metres?

A. David Davies, Head of Planning - There has been recent legal challenges concerning the definition, for example do you include the concrete plinth in the height? The mast should be measured from ground level.

Q. If operators want to install micro cells onto building - can anyone stop them?

A. David Davies, Head of Planning - They wouldn't require planning permission if it was a diminimus mast. It would require consent if it was a listed building.

Q. Is it more beneficial to keep to 15 metres?

A. Jane Evans, 3 - Operators aim to site share primarily where ever they can, unsure if it could be required legally. We look at existing buildings on brown field land.

Q. What are your views on Dr Hylands comments?

A. Dr Clark, NRPB - Dr Hyland gave evidence to the Stewart Committee and they were not convinced by his claims. There is no evidence for what he is proposing. We would have to close down our kitchens because of the combined output of frequencies.

Q. What are the compliance figures on output guidance for micro cells?

A. Dr Clark, NRPB - Micro cells are lower powered. The Stewart report recommends there should be an audit of base stations; I think these should include micro cells as they could me more powerful than a macro cell.

Q. Do we have robust criteria guidance for planning committees to make judgments on environmental and visual impact?

A. David Davies, Head of Planning - The PPG8 guidance states that applications for masts in areas of particular environmental importance need to be critically assessed and checked as to whether there are alternatives available to operators. This Council has refused applications in greenbelt areas on the basis of inappropriate development. The PPG's and local planning policies highlight the type of issues which would allow this Council to refuse of masts on environmental grounds.

Q. How far would the radius be for consultation on planning application for masts?

A. David Davies, Head of Planning - The local planning authority would make a decision on how wide to consult people, regarding planning and prior notification applications for masts. The properties immediately around the proposed site would always be consulted. There is no definitive distance, regarding how far to take the consultation from the site. Applications for masts in conservation areas would be advertised in the press. The legislation on masts, particularly the prior notification procedure is complicated and it is difficult for the public to understand the difference between the masts which require planning permission and those that do not. The statutory consultation period has now been extended from 28 days to 8 weeks. With regard to the issue of exclusion zone the government advises against them in PPG8, if exclusion zones were introduced there would be potential for legal challenge and it is likely that the Government Office of the South West (GOSW) would object to their inclusion in their conclusion in the local plan.

Jane Evans, 3 - Operators don't have a prescribed distance on which to consult, we focus on ward and parish councilors and use their local expertise for prioritisation.

Q. With regards to the following three points raised by Mr Ron Morgan can you comply with any of those?

A. Jane Evans, 3 - It is an obligation by the operator to endeavor to site share and state why we cannot site share in planning applications. It is not in operator's interests if we are unable to add to existing masts i.e. to upgrade or replace antennae's. We would have to seek new sites.

Q. Would it be good to have a designated council officer to deal with mobile phone mast issues?

A. David Davies, Head of Planning Services - A development control officer has become a telecoms expert and deals with the operators' annual roll-out plan. This is not an explicit role but we could review this.

END OF WITNESS SESSION

PANEL DEBATE AND CONCLUSIONS

The Panel debated the issues raised and concluded six themes, listed in the headings below, on which to advise the Council Executive. The following recommendations will be forwarded to the Council Executive for consideration at their meeting on 15^th January 2003.

The Corporate Issues & Partnerships Overview & Scrutiny Panel recommended that the Council Executive:

ENVIRONMENTAL & VISUAL IMPACT

HEALTH

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

(5) Acknowledge that the Council has to work within the national legal and advisory framework as detailed in the statutory guidance PPG8;

CONSULTATION

(6) To facilitate good local consultation, agree that operators should be provided with a contact list of Parish Councils and local ward members;

(7) Details of the consultation methods within the pre-planning process (dialogue between Bath and North East Somerset Council and Operators) should be clarified with all operators;

PLANNING ISSUES & PROCESS

(8) That operators should collectively meet annually with the local planning authority to discuss their future proposals for mobile masts sites;

(9) Should write to the Secretary of State requesting that planning permission should be required for all masts, including those under 15 metres;

(10) Agree that a map showing the location of mobile phone mast/ base station sites in Bath and North East Somerset should be published on the Council's web-site;

(11) Agree that information leaflets on mobile phones and masts should be made available in libraries, schools and public access points; and

(The Panel felt that the current scientific evidence presented to the Panel today did not substantiate any scientifically proven health effects from the positioning of mobile phone masts. However, the Panel acknowledged that the public have very real concerns.)

(12) The Panel recognised that whilst it is difficult to refuse planning applications for health reasons it recommended that the Council Executive, as land owner, should not accept any masts on Council owned property on or around school sites in Bath and North East Somerset.

CLOSE

The Convenor thanked everyone for attending the meeting and in particular the expert witnesses.