| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
The Question is, That the Bill be read a Second time. Those of that opinion say aye.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
To the contrary, no.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Second Reading what day? Friday next.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill was clearly objected to after the House had determined that the Bill should receive a Second Reading. I ask you to rule,Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Bill received a Second Reading without, as required by "Erskine May", the appropriate objection and that we should proceed with further stages of the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I had not quite completed putting the Question.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 22 March.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 May.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [26 January].
Debate further adjourned till Friday next.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.
Telecommunication Masts
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. MacKay]
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk):
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important subject of planning controls over telecommunication masts. My interest has been stimulated by the concern surrounding proposals in my constituency, but my inquiries lead me to believe that the problem is widespread.
Telecommunication masts can be erected up to a height of 15 m, or 50 ft, without any need for planning permission to be obtained. Given the growth of the telecommunications industry, which I broadly welcome and which the Department for Trade and Industry is actively encouraging, there is a danger that masts will proliferate in a visually intrusive and environmentally damaging manner.
I understand that it is the Government's policy to facilitate the growth of telecommunication systems because of the benefits they can bring. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister of State will confirm that. However, there are plenty of other industries besides telecommunications that confer benefits, but which are not allowed to put up buildings at will without going through the normal planning process. Indeed, I find it extraordinary that an industry which is clearly expanding rapidly on the basis of growing demand and also achieving attractive financial returns, should now be singled out for privileged treatment.
I am all in favour of keeping the planning process as simple as possible and trying to help planning authorities, applicants for planning permission and objectors by enabling decisions to be taken swiftly, and uncertainty to be resolved as quickly as possible. However, the importance of keeping regulation to a minimum does not have to mean that one form of development--and a potentially unattractive one at that--should be given a fast track through the normal system of controls.
The present arrangements allow unacceptable outcomes to slip through too often and too easily. There are plenty of other industries, many of which create jobs, attract investment to rural areas and improve service to their customers, which would dearly love to have a similar privileged position. Furthermore, individual householders, who have struggled for years to obtain approval for apparently inoffensive and modest alterations to their own properties, are understandably outraged that historic and cherished landscapes can suddenly be destroyed virtually without warning.
I recognise that a determined local authority, even under present regulations, has the power to block an especially offensive telecommunications mast, if it is minded to do so, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State would be able to tell me how many times that power has been used. I suspect that the answer is that the power has been used very infrequently.
The present regulations, which classify masts of less than 15 m in height as permitted development, are deficient in two respects. First, there is no obligation on either the telecommunications operators or the local planning authority to publicise any proposals to erect such masts. In practice, therefore, the first that some people--
who may be directly affected by the construction of such masts--know about the development is when they see the completed masts.
Given that the sites chosen for the masts are often, for operational reasons, visually prominent, the number of people affected can be great and may not be confined to those living in immediately adjacent property. I consider it entirely unsatisfactory that members of the public may find themselves confronted by a fait accompli, as a result of development about which they knew nothing until it was too late, and on which they had no opportunity to comment.
My second concern about the present procedure is the grossly inadequate timetable allowed to local planning authorities. During a space of only 28 days, the authorities must undertake consultation with the public, hold negotiations when appropriate with the operator, and reach a final decision on the merits of individual proposals. That 28-day period commences on the date on which the application from the telecommunications operator was received by the authority.
Those of us who have struggled to assist constituents over the years to overcome the seemingly endless bureaucracy and inordinate delays involved in the planning process are astonished that, apparently for the convenience of one already highly successful industry, an impossibly short deadline is imposed on local planning authorities.
I am quite unable to understand why the normal protection offered to the environment for the benefit of residents in urban and, more especially, in rural areas is not available in those cases. There is no reason whatever why such development should not be subject to normal planning controls when smaller and intrinsically less offensive development is still subject to them.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to the widespread and growing concern which is felt, not just by me, but by many other hon. Members, by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and by the Countryside Movement, whose chairman--the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale(Sir D. Steel)--has written to me to express his support.
The ideal response would be to bring all such developments within the ambit of normal planning controls. That would have immediate and considerable benefits and would be widely supported. Failing that, and perhaps as interim measures, my hon. Friend could take two other steps.
The first would be to introduce a requirement for telecommunications operators and local planning authorities to publicise proposals for telecommunications masts, in the same way that other planning proposals are publicised. Although even that measure could not guarantee that all those affected would be made aware of the proposed developments in advance, it would still represent a huge step forward from the present completely unsatisfactory position. Many more people would be alerted to the possibility of a mast in their neighbourhood, and would have the opportunity to express their views about it.
Secondly, the very limited 28-day period now available to local planning authorities to consult, negotiate and decide should be extended to at least eight weeks. I do not believe that that extension would significantly disadvantage the industry. It would make it much more
likely, however, that local opinion would be properly consulted and that sensible negotiations were carriedout to minimise the environmental impact of telecommunications masts that were deemed acceptable. In extreme cases, local authorities would have sufficient time to give a considered refusal to proposals which were simply unacceptable, and where negotiations had failed to produce an agreement.
I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make the changes that I have suggested applicable to all new proposals for telecommunications masts, regardless of how low or how acceptable their positions may be.
A further concern affects my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North(Mr. Jenkin), as a result of applications for telecommunications masts to be sited in Dedham Vale, an area of outstanding natural beauty. Having lived on the edge of the vale for the past 13 years, I am especially sensitive to the historic, unspoiled and beautiful nature of the landscape. It is inconceivable that a Government who have demonstrated so thoroughly their concern for a wide range of environmental issues should be willing to countenance the threatened destruction of some of the most famous and attractive views in the whole of East Anglia.
Fortunately, the three most recent proposals for masts have had to go through the normal planning process, because they are too high to be approved under the permitted development regulations to which I have referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North and I have been contacted by many people who are extremely worried about the proposals to place communications masts. They hope that action can be taken before permanent damage is done.
I understand that one of the applications has already been turned down by Colchester borough council, but there is much concern over the remaining applications, not least because the decisions are likely to be influenced by the terms of planning policy guidance note 8. That guidance instructs local planning authorities to
and
That, at the sitting on Monday 11th March--
(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Welsh Business not later than Ten o'clock; and
(2) Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply with the insertion in line 41, after the words 'At Ten o'clock', of the words 'or immediately after the previous business has been disposed of, whichever is the later'.--[Mr. MacKay.]2.32 pm
"respond positively to telecommunications development proposals"
"to be alive to the special needs and technical problems of telecommunications development."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |