| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on securing this Adjournment debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss an important matter that causes concern to many people. They feel quite reasonable anxiety about the environmental and the health impact of telecommunication masts erected in their vicinity.
The growth in the mobile communications sector over the past 15 years has been remarkable. There are more than 13 million mobile phone subscribers in the United Kingdom; in other words, more than one in five of the population has a mobile phone. Some analysts expect that figure to rise to about 30 million subscribers--one in two of the population--by 2003.
An efficient and modern telecommunications network offers a number of significant social and economic benefits, helping to create a climate conducive to business development and providing ready access to a growing range of services in urban and rural areas.
The technical constraints of cellular radio networks--the need to have a line of sight between handsets and base stations, for example--means that providing the necessary infrastructure represents a considerable challenge. In meeting that challenge, it is important that we continue to strive to minimise the environmental impact of the new installations.
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford:
I do not have time to give way, as unfortunately, I have been given only 12 minutes to reply. I must press ahead if I am to do justice to the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.
The Government's policy for telecommunications development is to strike a balance between the provision of a competitive national telecommunications network and the protection of our environment. That is reflected in the planning policy guidance on telecommunication development set out in planning policy guidance note 8. We are fully committed to our environmental objectives and established national policies for the protection of the countryside and residential areas.
It may be helpful if I explain the background to the licensing of radio-based telecommunications operators. The network operators are licensed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to provide mobile radio telecommunication services. In order to help them to do that, they are granted telecommunications code powers.
As licensed code system operators, cellular operators are given permitted development rights under part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General) Permitted Development Order 1995. Under the GPDO, operators have the right to carry out certain types of development without the need to apply to the local planning authority for planning permission. Some development permitted in this way, such as the erection of a mast up to 15 m in height, is, however, subject to a condition that requires the operator to satisfy a prior approval procedure. Under that procedure, the local planning authority has the opportunity to say whether it wishes to approve, within 28 days, details of the installation's siting and appearance. The authority is able to refuse approval if it considers that the development will pose a serious threat to amenity.
It is important that operators recognise that the selection of sites for the erection of masts may raise a number of sensitive issues. That is particularly true of residential areas. Appendix E to environment circular 9/95, in suggesting the sort of considerations that might need to be taken into account in addressing a mast's siting under the GPDO provisions, refers to the site in relation to residential property. Further guidance on this aspectis included in the code of best practice on telecommunications prior approval procedures as applied to mast or tower development, which is published by our Department. Copies of that document are available in the Library.
I commend the code, which was prepared by a joint working party of local authority representatives and the principal telecommunications code system operators, as a basis for best practice. It provides guidance on how local planning authorities and operators can co-operate to make it easier for prior approval applications to be dealt with effectively within the time allowed under the GPDO.
As well as providing guidance on the operator's practice, the code examines the local planning authority's role. It is important that local authorities understand the constraints within which telecom companies operate, and assist them in finding pragmatic solutions. The planning authorities' local knowledge is vital in that process. The control of development, such as telecommunication masts, does not rely simply on responding to planning applications. PPG8 sets out a number of positive steps that local planning authorities can take to help shape telecommunications development in their area. As to the hon. Gentleman's third proposal, we expect local authorities to include clear policies on telecommunications in their development plans, which are adopted after opportunities for public involvement in their preparation.
The guidance also makes clear the importance we attach to close consultation between operators and local planning authorities before making any application for consent to install telecommunications apparatus. Pre-application discussion will assist both sides in understanding the constraints within which the other is working, and exploring possible alternatives for mast siting and design. Although not a statutory requirement, the Department encourages publicity for prior approval applications so that people likely to be affected by the proposed development can make their views known to the authority. Many of these working practices are set down in the code of best practice.
We want to avoid the situation highlighted by the hon. Gentleman--it occurred in his constituency--in which local residents are unaware of a proposed mast installation until work commences. For that reason, we made proposals in our consultation paper "Telecommunications Development Control", which was published for public comment in July. In that paper, we said that we considered that the use of permitted development rights continued to be appropriate, but that there was scope for improving procedures to address a number of concerns. A major concern was the need to allow for greater public consultation over the siting and design of masts erected under the GPDO. A wide range of respondents to the consultation paper were highly supportive of the principle of increasing the opportunity for public comment.
In November, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning announced his intention to extend the prior approval notice period to 42 days for ground-based masts. That announcement was intended to ensure that local authorities would have sufficient time to consult local communities on the siting and appearance of proposed mast installations at the outset.
We intend to place a statutory obligation on the operators to erect a site notice to publicise the development proposed. That will advise local people of the proposed development, and enable them to make their views known to the local authority. The authority will be able to take any representations into account when considering whether to grant or refuse approval to the mast's siting and appearance.
There will continue to be a need for local authorities to establish the necessary avenues for consultation with local Members and residents ahead of a GPDO application. The guidance that we are drawing up will cover the local authority's role in bringing the application to the attention of interested parties, and undertaking any additional publicity that might be required to achieve that. We believe that the new procedures will overcome the problems described by the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that they will prevent any further sieges of Whinney lane or anywhere else.
Concern has been expressed about the number of telecommunications masts. It is important not to ignore the technical constraints of rolling out telecommunications networks; that said, we are anxious to keep the numbers of masts to a minimum, consistent with an efficient network. This is why we encourage mast sharing.
It is for that reason that the licences issued to telecommunications operators require them, before erecting a new mast, to take all reasonable steps to investigate using, or replacing for joint use, an existing mast or other structure, whether their own or belonging to another operator. I understand that 60 per cent. of the mobile operators' antennae are now on buildings, other structures or shared masts.
While recognising that mast or site sharing may not be the answer in every case--the installation of new and innovative masts and antennae, designed and sited to blend into the environment, might on occasion be a more attractive option--the Government attach great importance to minimising the impact of telecommunications development on the environment. We are keen to discuss with the telecommunications industry what more can be done on all sides to reduce the adverse environmental impact of new development, by furthering our policy on mast sharing and in other ways. To that end, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning will meet representatives of the industry early next month. I hope that, following all that I have said, the hon. Gentleman will realise that the Government take the matter very seriously, and are taking steps to address the problems that he has raised.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's worries about the alleged adverse health effects in connection with telecommunications installations. We are aware of public concern about the suggestion that there can be harmful effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields, including
those associated with mobile communications base stations, and the Government take that concern seriously. The National Radiological Protection Board issues guidelines for restricting human exposure to electromagnetic fields. The guidelines are based on well- established thermal effects, and their basis is broadly consistent with other international guidelines such as those of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection.
The NRPB guidelines can be exceeded in areas close to and directly in front of the antenna, but I should emphasise that that is within 1 to 2 m, and that the public are prevented from access to such areas. The practical effect of health and safety at work legislation, under which operators have a duty to ensure that their work activities do not present a risk to employees and the general public, will be to prevent public access to areas where the NRPB guideline levels are exceeded. Exposure at ground levels, and in areas to which the public have access, are many times below recommended exposure levels--typically, some thousands of times inside the exposure limit.
The House may be aware that on 8 December, my Department issued a joint circular with the Department of Health on a consultation exercise on land use planning and electromagnetic fields, which deals specifically with those considerations in the land use planning context. A copy of the consultation package has been placed in the Library. The closing date for responses is 19 February. Hon. Members, and members of the public with an interest in the subject, are encouraged to forward their views to my Department in the context of the public consultation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |