|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) which mobile phone companies have notified him of a change in their policy on selecting sites for mobile phone masts to take account of the Stewart report; what such changes in policy are, in each case; and if he will make a statement; 
Ms Beverley Hughes: My officials have met each of the mobile phone operators at least twice since the Stewart report was published on 11 May. They have discussed the range of actions being taken forward by Government in response to the Stewart report's recommendations on planning and the role of the operators in taking forward the recommendations, including those about base stations on and near schools and about mast sharing.
The Federation of the Electronics Industry (FEI) issued a response to the Stewart report on 11 May. This included an explanation of the policy of the mobile phone operators on the siting of base stations. The response is available on their website at "www.fei.org.uk".
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the Department of Health on amending his planning guidance notes to adopt a precautionary approach to health risks from mobile telephone masts; what assessment he has made of the report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones; and if he will make a statement. 
27 Jul 2000 : Column: 768W
and scientifically robust information on any health effects. The Government accepts the recommended precautionary approach advised by the Stewart report.
In its response to the group's report the Government said that it was minded to introduce a requirement for full planning permission for all new telecommunications masts, but would need to consult widely before doing so, including on the principle and precise scope of any new arrangements. We intend to issue shortly a consultation paper on this and related guidance which will include consideration of health concerns.
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what weighting PPG3: Housing is to carry in relation to local authorities' development plans in determining planning applications as set out in section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Acts. 
27 Jul 2000 : Column: 769W
The number of call-in and recovery cases--typically, about 150 of each a year--represents a very small proportion of the number of planning applications and appeals dealt with every year. They also tend to be rather more complicated than the generality of planning decisions. Nevertheless, it is clear that, overall, the decision-making process for called-in applications and recovered appeals needs to be expedited. The Department has been reviewing the procedures with a view to improving performance.
Mr. Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of companies who are required to register under the Packaging Regulations and who had not done so by 30 June. 
Mr. Meacher: The number of businesses which are required to register under the Packaging Regulations, and had failed to do so by 30 June 2000, has been estimated by the Environment Agency at between 400 and 650. Work currently being undertaken by the Environment Agency should help to refine that figure later in the year. The majority of those businesses are likely to be smaller ones with an average packaging tonnage of between 100-150 tonnes per annum.
Mr. Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the (a) maximum and (b) minimum fine imposed on firms for infringing the Packaging Regulations. 
Mr. Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the merits of the Central Railway project on its current proposed routing around the south-west quadrant of the M25. 
Mr. Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will meet a delegation of elected representatives from Surrey to discuss the problem of blight created by the proposed Central Railway scheme; 
27 Jul 2000 : Column: 770W
Mr. Hill: In answer to a Parliamentary Question today, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), has announced the publication of the report of the Compulsory Purchase Policy Review Advisory Group which, among other things, considers the issue of blight. In his reply, my hon. Friend has invited comments on all the recommendations in the report, and these will then be taken into account in preparing the Government's response setting out our future policy intentions with regard to compulsory purchase issues including blight.
In the meantime, little could be achieved by meeting a delegation to discuss the specific blight problems caused by the proposed Central Railway scheme in Surrey as there are no statutory powers under which any remedy could be provided at this stage in the development of the Company's scheme.
Mr. Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the financial strength of the promoters of the proposed Central Railway scheme and of the likelihood of the project reaching fruition. 
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reduction in hourly capacity has been caused by traffic management changes to the A4 Cromwell road in the last three years. 
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the increase in car journey times on the M4 eastbound in the morning peak from the M25 to the start of the bus lane, as a result of the introduction of the bus lane. 
27 Jul 2000 : Column: 771W
|Time saved per vehicle|
|Time of day(1)||Buses and taxis||Other vehicles|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|