Scotland
38. In Scotland, there is no system of prior
approval. The view was taken that the requirements of the DTI
licence and other restrictions placed on permitted development
rights were sufficient. In May 1998 the Scottish Office issued
a consultation paper on the siting and appearance of masts. The
DETR consultation on planning controls prompted a second paper
on additional controls in Scotland in November 1998. Both these
papers proposed the introduction of a prior approval system for
ground based masts eligible for permitted development rights,
that is, those under 15 metres high. The Scottish Parliament's
Transport and Environment Committee undertook a major inquiry
into the subject in the autumn of 1999 and published its Report
in March 2000.[34]
It concluded that the benefits of the introduction of full planning
outweighed the potential disadvantages. On 24 November 2000, a
further consultation package was issued by the Executive, proposing
that all new ground masts and associated development should be
subject to full planning control. The Transport and Environment
Committee's response to the consultation has stated the proposals
"do not go far enough".[35]
No decision has yet been made.
Diversity
39. The operators feel that "it would be
a real shame if there was a regional divide because of regional
planning legislation".[36]
BT Cellnet suggested that if each country adopted a different
approach, it might lead to higher costs for suppliers and higher
prices for consumers.[37]
The operators would obviously have an easier life if everybody
was singing from the same hymn-sheet. It is the nature of devolution
that they are not necessarily going to have that situation.
There may indeed be advantage in jurisdictions having differing
systems for dealing with telecoms permissions so that some objective
analysis can be made of the effects of each. Any operator who
discriminated against one part of the United Kingdom in rolling
out a network because of the application of a more stringent planning
system should expect to be called in by OFTEL.
17 Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones and Health,
Science and Technology Committee, Third Report, Session 1998-99,
HC 489-I Back
18 Cm
4551 Back
19 Cm
4551, p2 Back
20 Eg
Q 8 Back
21 Eg
Q 1 Back
22 Q
2; also Q 43 Back
23 Q
22 etc; see also Qq 47, 99 etc and Q 34 on power lines Back
24 6.45 Back
25 6.55 Back
26 Q
2 Back
27 www.doh.gov.uk Back
28 HC
257, paras 47,55 Back
29 Eg
Qq 39, 99 Back
30 See
Ev,pp 45 and 50 for plan Back
31 HC
Deb, 16 March 2001, cols 748-751w Back
32 Qq
116, 144 Back
33 Consultation
Paper on Telecommunications: Proposals to amend Part 17 of Schedule
1 to the Planning (General Development) Order (Northern Ireland)
1993; Consultation Draft Planning Policy Statement 10 Telecommunications
Development, November 2000 Back
34 SP
Paper 90, session 1 (2000) Back
35 Letter
from Andrew Kerr to Sam Galbraith, press notice, 15 February 2001
Back
36 Q
156 Back
37 Ev,
p 48, para 6 (i) Back