| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I suddenly thought it was Sunday, for a moment.
I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said about the impact of telecommunication masts on the countryside. I was about to say that it is a hobby, but it is a matter of distinct long-term importance that my hon. Friend has
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1319
I shall start in reverse, as it were, and take up the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed about what happens to telecommunications installations when they become redundant. In an age when technologies develop rapidly, it is something that we must consider. The House will be aware that installations by licensed telecommunications companies are governed by the Telecommunications Act 1984 as well as--I am not putting one above the other--the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Both the telecommunications code and the operators' licence obligations require that apparatus must be removed when redundant. Provisions under the planning Act reinforce this requirement. It is also a condition of development permitted by the General Permitted Development Order 1995 that redundant apparatus is removed, and that local planning authorities may attach, if they wish--I hope that some of them are awake to this--similar conditions to planning permissions that they grant.
My hon. Friend talked about satellites. These are fine for transmitting television programmes to millions of viewers but, unfortunately, they are apparently not suitable at present for systems that must provide for an extremely large number of two-way conversations at the same time.
My hon. Friend talked also about possibilities of making masts smaller. That is already happening. I understand that many base stations are already a passable imitation of street lights and antennae serving individual streets. They can be no larger than burglar alarms. The difficulty is that the range and capacity of this smaller apparatus is limited and therefore not suitable for many locations, especially in the open countryside. The choice is often between one large mast and a number of smaller but still fairly obvious ones serving the same area. We can expect, however, that technological refinements will make masts smaller and less obtrusive. We are working in discussions with the operators and the Department of Trade and Industry.
Here and now there is a continuing need sensitively to accommodate masts in the landscape. Our policy is to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems because of the benefits that they can bring. For example, fast, reliable and cost-effective communications can help to attract new business and assist established firms. I understand that they even assist farmers in the countryside.
There are other benefits too, such as safety and security. Accessible communications systems can reduce the need to travel, using the telephone driver information systems. They can enable more effective use to be made of the existing road network. I must emphasise, however, that this must be done while honouring our commitment to protect the environment, and especially our best and most sensitive areas. In short, the Government's land use planning policy seeks to balance the national importance of the telecommunications industry with the need to protect visual amenity.
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1320
My hon. Friend mentioned specific developments in his area. As he appreciates, it is not appropriate for me to comment on such matters at this stage, given that appeals may be lodged. Our general policy on the development of telecommunications is set out in planning policy guidance Note 8, which facilitates the growth of new and existing systems, while honouring our commitments to environmental objectives, including well established national policies for the protection of the countryside and urban areas. The PPG confirms the need, in the context of telecommunications development, to protect the best and most sensitive environments. Those include national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and conservation areas. The need to protect those and other defined areas is recognised under both licensing and planning legislation.
Code system operators' licences may impose their own environmental conditions, which help to protect those areas. Equally, the control of development under the Planning Act recognises the special needs of those areas. The installation of any mast in an area of outstanding natural beauty or other protected area is subject to full planning control.
Elsewhere, the general permitted development order allows code system operators to carry out various types of development, including the erection of masts of up to 15 m high, without the need to apply for planning permission. That freedom was reviewed in 1992, when we decided that the 15 m limit struck the right balance. Masts over the 15 m limit require a full planning application, but that does not mean that local planning authorities are powerless to prevent masts under 15 m in unsuitable locations. A code system operator wishing to erect a mast of up to 15 m in height must apply to the local planning authority for its determination as to whether it wishes to approve details of the mast siting and appearance, and the authority can refuse approval to one or both of those aspects if it considers that it is justified. As with applications made for other kinds of development, a code system operator has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment when the authorisation sought from a local planning authority is not forthcoming.
Decisions taken by local planning authorities on planning applications, and by the Secretary of State on appeals, must be made in accordance with the local authority's development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National planning policies, too, may be a governing factor when such decisions are made. In the context of telecommunications applications, that means not only the policies set out in PPG8 but relevant policies in other guidance notes. For instance, PPG8 cites green-belt policies--PPG2; countryside policies--PPG7; and policies for nature conservation--now PPG9--as particularly relevant.
To help keep the number of masts to a minimum, our planning policy guidance encourages mast-sharing, and licences issued by the Department of Trade and Industry require operators to consider that. There are, however, technical constraints. A choice must sometimes be made between one larger and more conspicuous mast shared by several operators and more than one smaller, less conspicuous masts for a number of individual operators.
Local authority development plans apply national landscape conservation policies on a site-specific basis and may well formulate policies for locally defined landscape areas. Increasingly, plans contain policies and
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1321
I have sought briefly to explain the land-use policy framework, which offers a firm basis for decisions on proposals for telecommunications masts. Planning authorities have a substantial degree of control over that type of development through the prior approval procedure and the need for a full planning application to be submitted in sensitive areas.
My hon. Friend mentioned the code of best practice that my Department published last year. To encourage better working of the prior approval procedure, we set up a working group consisting of representatives of local planning authorities, the code system operators, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Office. The code has been generally welcomed as setting out a
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1322
When the code was launched, we undertook to reconvene the working group to review its operation. With the help of the code operators and local planning authorities, the group is monitoring the working of the code. My Department has undertaken a preliminary survey of the code's effectiveness. One of the survey's findings was that 11 per cent. of the applications for prior approval reported during the survey period were refused by the local authorities.
| Index | Home Page |