AGENDA ITEM 7
BOROUGH OF POOLE
LOCAL ECOMONY OVERVIEW GROUP
6 DECEMBER 2007
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING DESIGN AND CONTROL SERVICES
TELECOMMUNCATION MASTS ROLL OUT & APPLICATION PROCEDURES
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To respond to the Motion carried at the Meeting of the Service Provision Scrutiny and Audit Committee on 13th September 2007 which recommended that this Group be requested to assess the recommendations of the Review of the Code of Best Practice and, where there are perceived benefits, incorporate those changes in future discussions with the Mobile Operators
2. RECOMMENDATION
(i) To note the report
(ii) To recommend that Cabinet be requested to approve the amendments to the Council’s Telecommunication Masts Roll Out & Application Procedures to include:-
· To arrange an invitation for Mobile Operators (or their representative) to attend Area Committee meetings to discuss proposed installations, update on case law and other informative advice relevant to proposed applications.
· To produce a guidance leaflet which explains the broad principles of PPG8, permitted development rights, health considerations and answers commonly asked questions.
· To require a summary table of comments received from consultees, along with a response to those comments and copies of the actual letters to be submitted with an application seeking full planning permission or prior approval.
· To produce and maintain an ‘up-to-date’ mast register.
· To require Operators to submit an electronic map version of the Roll Out plans.
· To require Operators to submit ‘scaled’ photomontages or other illustrations that show the context, appearance and impact of proposed installations.
· To cross reference proposals within the Operator’s Roll Out to ensure consistency and other Operator’s plans to establish where mast sharing opportunities arise.
· To require Operators to submit cell coverage plans which are easy to read and understand.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The reality of the current environment is that the majority of individuals within our community owns or has access to a mobile phone, but the majority of individuals do not want the required infrastructure, namely masts and antennae especially in sensitive locations close to homes or schools.
3.2 In the past decade or so, the popularity of mobile phones has increased vastly and the technologies required to meet that increasing demand have evolved and continue to do so at an astonishing rate. Several years ago, the technology used in mobile phones was known as ‘2G’ which enabled a mobile phone user to make telephone calls and send/ receive text messages from wherever there was coverage to do so. The masts and antennas required were spaced several hundred metres apart to create a ‘honeycomb’ effect of cell coverage across the Borough and the entire country.
3.3 In recent years, the market demand has required technology to be more interactive, thus mobile operators created ‘3G’ which enables users to send video messaging, access the internet, download music, etc. The resultant impact and general growth in traffic brought about by increased usage requires greater access to cells which is achieved by masts being positioned closer together as signal strengths are weaker and process of information is more complex. Ultimately, this increased use of mobile phones and their function ability requires masts and antennae to be closer together than before.
3.4 In giving planning guidance to Local Planning Authorities (LPA), Central Government has had regard to several advisory research documents, the most relevant being ‘The Stewart Report - Mobile Phones and Health: A report from the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones’ prepared by Sir William Stewart in 2000.
3.5 In that report Stewart and the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) produced a wide-ranging and comprehensive investigation into the present state of knowledge about mobile phones and alleged health considerations. It also considered broader issues related to the development of the telecommunications industry and its public acceptability. The conclusions in terms of health were that telecommunication installations did not exceed unacceptable health tolerances in terms of radiation and, subject to the continued compliance with International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) regulations, the health concerns associated with use of telecommunication installations were not warranted.
3.6 In Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8) if the Operator has submitted an application or prior approval accompanied by a ‘ICNIRP’ certificate, then health considerations are not a matter for the Local Planning Authority.
3.7 Thus the powers of the LPA to determine an application or prior approval submission are limited, being restricted to ‘siting’ and ‘appearance’ only.
3.8 Furthermore, under Part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) (1995), mobile phone operators benefit from a wide range of powers to carry out the installation of antennae, erect masts to a certain height or carry out alterations to existing masts without the need to obtain the approval of the LPA.
3.9 Generally when applications for mast installations or antennae are submitted to the LPA, the proposals can generate great public opposition which is reflected in Members’ concerns and requests for reasons for refusal. These can only be based upon matters of ‘siting’ and ‘appearance’ and not public health considerations.
3.10 To enable greater communication and understanding between the Mobile Operators’ Association (MOA) and the LPA, ‘the Code of Best Practice (CoBP) on Mobile Phone Network Development’ was drawn up and agreed by representatives of Central Government, Local Government and the Mobile Phone Industry. It was first produced in 1996 and further revised in 2001. It is a voluntary code that “provides clear and practical advice to ensure the delivery and significantly better and more effective communication and consultation between Operators, Local Authorities and local people”.
3.11 The CoBP also aims to standardise procedures and forms so that there is a measure of consistency across the country, sets out the technical feature of mobile systems and provides good practice guidance on the siting and design of telecommunications equipment.
3.12 In 2006 a Review of the operation and effectiveness of the CoBP was undertaken by a study team from the University of Reading and Arup (on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister). A report has been submitted to the DCLG outlining recommendations to improve the procedures to further enhance the effective communication and consultation between Operators, Local Authorities and local people.
3.13 Neither the CoBP or the Review is adopted planning policy or recommended as good practice, but they do take what seems to be a worthwhile and common sense approach to dissemination of information between the parties interested in telecommunications developments.
3.14 This report outlines the Unit’s current working practice, considers the headline conclusions and recommendations of the Review and proposed recommendations, where necessary, that will improve the procedures of this Authority in handling Telecommunication Masts Roll-Out discussions and information submitted to accompany applications.
3.15 The report seeks the approval of LEOG to endorse the recommendations for procedural change. No policy changes are involved.
3.16 Regarding Council land and installations of telecommunication equipment, at the Council meeting held on 16th May 2000, Members resolved a Motion that amongst others “not allow the use of its land for telecommunication stations unless it has been considered by Council”.
3.17 During the Council’s meeting held on 16th February 2006, the Council revoked that the Motion of 16th May 2000, referring to the quotation specified in the previous paragraph.
Pre-application Discussions & Roll Out Plans – Present Procedure
3.18 We have annual Roll Out discussions with Mobile Operators. The majority of Operators have already established their sites and installations to maintain their ‘3G’ coverage so the number of new installations proposals has reduced over the years.
3.19 When Roll Out discussions occur, the quality of information provided by Operators is similar in terms of specification, detailed considerations and supporting information. The information outlines where the site is located, the status of the site, whether it is an existing or new location, and the type of installation proposed.
3.20 The information is displayed on a spreadsheet but no plans of the site or context are shown. Discussions have to take place based only on the Officer’s awareness of the sites and preliminary assessment.
3.21 There appears to be no co-ordination of mast sharing or attempts to do so on the part of the individual Operators. A more rigorous sequential approach to site selection needs to be adopted by the Operators which is capable of being checked by the Local Planning Authority.
3.22 The Roll Out discussions which take place provide the LPA with an opportunity to influence the siting of masts, suggest alternative locations and the level of pre-application consultation undertaken by the Operators: a pre-requisite to an application being submitted.
3.23 To establish the level of consultation required, the LPA and Operators use the ‘Traffic Light Model’ which is discussed later in this report.
3.24 The LPA’s current masts register is basic and consists of a paper plan of the Borough with individual sites of masts or telecommunication installations indicated. Updating the plan and its details was partially carried out when first set up, but recently co-ordinating Operators’ Roll Out plans has been carried out on an ad-hoc basis.
Pre-application Discussions & Roll Out Plans – Review Recommendations
3.25 It is recognised in the Review that Roll Out discussions between the Operators and the LPA is key to the effective delivery of proposed telecommunication installations and should be continued on an annual basis.
3.26 The LPA should arrange for Operators to attend Area Planning Committee meetings to discuss their Roll Out plans with the wider community. The discussions generated between Operators and interested parties should influence the Roll Out plan process and proposed installations. There is a significant challenge here in that there will be immediate focus on individual sites, without taking a broader view of the needs for coverage in any given area.
3.27 The LPA should develop a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on telecommunications, to communicate the understanding of permitted development rights, the Council’s policy on telecommunication and influence design proposals.
3.28 When submitting applications for prior approvals or applications for installations, Operators should include in their application a summary table of comments received from consultees, along with a response to those comments and copies of the actual letters.
3.29 The Review recommends that ‘up-to-date’ mast registers should be held by the LPA, to facilitate Roll Out discussions.
3.30 The Review suggests that an electronic roll out plan should be submitted to disseminate information in a common format that can be linked to LPA’s geographic information systems.
Pre-application Discussions & Roll Out Plans – Proposed Procedure Changes
3.31 It is recognised that ‘forward loading’ the planning system to enable the views of interested parties, residents and Ward Members as well as the LPA and Operators can positively improve the certainty of the plan-led system and influence proposed installations.
3.32 Once initial Roll Out discussions have taken place between the Operators and the LPA, the LPA will arrange an invitation to the Operators offering an opportunity to attend Area Committee meetings to discuss proposed installations, update on case law and other informative advice relevant to proposed applications.
3.33 The production of an SPD on telecommunications is not considered necessary as PPG8 and Part 24 of the GPDO already outlines the policies and regulations governing telecommunications installations and explanation of the health considerations.
3.34 It would be more beneficial, to produce an explanatory guidance leaflet, which explains in plain English the broad principles of PPG8, explains permitted development rights, health considerations and answers commonly asked questions.
3.35 When submitting applications for prior approvals or applications for installations, Operators should include in their application a summary table of comments received from consultees, along with a response to those comments and copies of the actual letters. Doing so will formalise the consultation undertaken by Mobile Operators prior to formal submissions. Information will be required regarding details of discarded sites as will letters from land owners who have rejected telecommunication installation offers so that the Operator can demonstrate to the LPA, Councillors and local residents that all options for siting have been considered.
3.36 An ‘up-to-date’ mast register will be collated and held by the LPA to facilitate discussion during Roll Out meetings. These details will be made available on the LPA’s website to disseminate information to the wider community.
3.37 The LPA will request, in addition to the Roll Out plans currently submitted, an electronic map version, compatible with the Authority’s geographic information system. Doing so will allow efficient co-ordination between different Operator’s roll out plans and help to identify sites which could effectively be used for mast sharing.
Traffic Light Model & Pre-application Discussions – Present Procedure
3.38 The ‘Traffic Light Model’ (TLM) gives an informal indication to the likely sensitivity in terms of environmental, planning and community considerations of proposed installations and will influence the extent of consultation required by an Operator prior to the formal submission of an application or prior approval.
3.39 Where sites are indicated to be ‘red’, the consultation strategy to be prepared and implemented needs to have the largest consultation in terms of residents/ community groups, Ward Members and other interested parties. Where sites are indicated to be ‘amber’ or ‘green’ less consultation is required. At no time does the use of the TLM by the LPA give Operators an indication of the acceptability of an application for that installation.
Traffic Light Model & Pre-application Discussions – Review Recommendations
3.40 The Review recognises that the TLM can be effective when used by the LPA and encourages its continuation to influence consultation.
3.41 The Review encourages similar models to be adopted to meet individual Authority’s needs and used to identify different methods of communication and the level required to be achieved.
3.42 The Review suggests that where authorisation is granted, interested resident group contact details are placed on the Authority’s website to inform Operators of the contact details of interested parties, further enabling communication.