| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Telecommunications Masts
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; [132934]
- (2) what recent discussions he has had with each of the mobile phone operators concerning their policy on the siting of mobile phone masts; and if he will make a statement. [132935]
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. [132582]
Ms Beverley Hughes: The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (chaired by Sir William Stewart) published its report on mobile phones and health on 11 May.
The group recommended a precautionary approach, comprising a series of specific measures, to the use of mobile phone technologies until we have more detailed
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.
Discussions have been held with the all relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health, in drawing up the consultation paper and related guidance.
Planning
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. [132919]
Ms Beverley Hughes: Planning Policy Guidance note 1 advises local planning authorities that
- if there are no other material considerations, the application or appeal should be determined in accordance with the development plan
but emphasises that plan policies should be relevant and up-to date (para 54).
- development plans form the framework within which decisions on proposals for development are taken. It is important that plans are kept up to date and properly reflect national policy guidance.
- in considering planning applications for housing development in the interim, before development plans can be reviewed, local authorities should have regard to the policies contained in this PPG as material considerations which may supersede the policies in their plan
(see paras 37-39).
Mr. Raynsford: The information is as follows:
- i. Called-in applications
- Target: issue 80 per cent. of decisions in 13 weeks and 100 per cent. in 20 weeks
- Performance: 62 per cent. issued in 13 weeks and 72 per cent. in 20 weeks
- ii. Recovered appeals
- Target: issue 80 per cent. of decisions in 8 weeks and 100 per cent. in 13 weeks
- Performance: 48 per cent. issued in 8 weeks and 57 per cent. in 13 weeks.
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.
Packaging Regulations
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. [133045]
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. [133048]
Mr. Meacher: (a) The maximum fine was £10,000 plus costs and (b) the minimum was zero (unconditional discharge).
Mr. Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many firms had been successfully prosecuted for infringing the Packaging Regulations by 30 June. [133046]
Mr. Meacher: Sixteen firms have been successfully prosecuted under the Packaging Regulations.
Mr. Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the average fine imposed on firms prosecuted for infringing the Packaging Regulations. [133047]
Mr. Meacher: The average fine under the Packaging Regulations is £1,500 plus costs.
Central Railway
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. [133141]
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; [133142]
27 Jul 2000 : Column: 770W
- (2) what steps he plans to take to avoid long-term blight of properties located on or close to the route of the Central Railway proposed freight line through Surrey. [133143]
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. [133157]
Mr. Hill: None. I understand that Central Railways plc may intend to submit an application under the Transport and Works Act but no such application has yet been received.
London Roads
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. [133175]
Mr. Hill: This is a matter for the Mayor of London and Transport for London.
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. [133176]
Mr. Hill: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the right hon. Member.
Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. John Redwood, dated 27 July 2000:
- The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent question about the increase in car journey times on the M4 eastbound in the morning peak from the M25 to the start of the bus lane, due to the introduction of the bus lane.
- The independent monitoring of the M4 bus lane, which is being undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), has been providing details of the changes in journey times on the M4 between junction 4 and the elevated section. Journey times between the M25 and junction 4 have not been monitored in the same way because traffic conditions here are rarely affected by the introduction of the bus lane. Changes in conditions are due to the general increase in traffic volumes, local increases attributable to growth at Heathrow
27 Jul 2000 : Column: 771W
- Airport and Stockley Park, and the consequent operation of the M25/M4 junction, the junction 4 roundabout and the section of road between.
- The TRL monitoring for the first year supports the changes in journey times reported after 3 months and which were given in the leaflet that was widely distributed and placed in the Library of the House. I enclose a further copy for your ease of reference. The figures for reductions in journey times between junction 4 and the elevated section, as recorded by TRL for the equivalent October/November 1998 and 1999 periods, are as follows:
| Time saved per vehicle | ||
|---|---|---|
| Time of day(1) | Buses and taxis | Other vehicles |
| 06.30-09.30 | 4.1 | 1.3 |
| 09.30-17.30 | -0.7 | -0.9 |
| 17.30-20.30 | 2.9 | 0.6 |
| 20.30-06.30 | -1.2 | -1.0 |
(1) Weekday
TRL are currently finalising their report for the first year's operation of the scheme, and I have asked that they divide off the journey time changes to give the information for the section between junctions 4 and 3. To clarify the reasons for changes in conditions between the M25 and junction 4, I have also asked TRL to review all of the data routinely obtained from sensors in the carriageway and to include their conclusions in the report. We expect to receive this within a month and I will write again with this information when it is available.
In the meantime, should you wish to discuss this matter further Paul Harwood, the Project Manager for this section of the M4 would be happy to speak to you. His telephone number is 01306 878471.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |