SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Telecoms masts planning regime
(a) It is not surprising
that all concerned are thoroughly frustrated with the complexity
and arbitrariness of the planning approval system which has grown
up over the past 15 years as a result of repeated tinkering at
the edges with the basic concept of permitted development rights.
The system has created a possibly perverse incentive for masts
just below 15 metres. It has left the public feeling powerless.
It is unclear. Whatever is judged the best outcome from the latest
review, there is much to be said for a moratorium on any further
changes for a period of years. Urgent steps must now be taken
to introduce some greater certainty and clarity into the planning
regime for telecoms masts, so that the new regime is in place
by the end of May 2001, a year after publication of the Stewart
Report (paragraphs 18 and 31).
Stewart Report and planning
(b) The IEGMP should
have had access to expertise in planning law and practice, once
it became evident that it would be making detailed recommendations
on the subject. The connection between the precautionary principle
and its recommendations on planning law could have been more thought
out. We remain to be convinced that this focus on changing the
planning regime to be applied to telecoms developments represented
the most useful way of dealing with the issues raised of public
perceptions of a health risk and the inherent element of uncertainty
(paragraph 26).
Diversity in the United Kingdom
(c) 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. 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 (paragraph 36).
New regime: 16 March 2001 announcement
(d) In broad terms,
base stations are now to be under the same regime in practice
if not in name whatever their height, except that those
under 15 metres will enjoy the benefit of permission by default
within 8 weeks if the local authority does not object. It
must be asked what purpose is served by retaining the prior approval
regime if it is to be the same except in name to planning permission
(paragraphs 37 and 39).
(e) While we cannot
give the 16 March 2001 proposals an unqualified welcome, they
do represent a neatly crafted compromise between the concerns
of the operators that subjecting all base stations to full planning
permission would cause undue delay, and the public sense that
the prior approval system unduly favoured the operators over public
interest, and allowed for insufficient public consultation (paragraph
40).
New regime: 56 day period
(f) We recommend that
the 56 day period should be open to extension by agreement where
such discussions likely to produce an outcome agreeable to all
parties are in progress; and that the refusal of an operator of
a request by the local authority for such an extension could be
good grounds for refusal of prior approval. If the operator felt
that the refusal of prior approval was unreasonable, then of course
the operator would be free then as now to appeal (paragraph 41).
New regime: obligation to respond
(g) If prior approval
is indeed to be planning permission in all but name, local planning
authorities must be under an obligation to make some response
to the notification submitted by an operator (paragraph 42).
New regime: incentive to share
(h) We see some virtue
in bringing some applications for mast and site sharing, which
might otherwise require full planning permission, within the marginally
more "operator-favourable" prior approval regime (paragraph
43).
Future partnership
(i) A more constructive
appraisal of alternative sites by all concerned would help.
There is no reason to doubt that operators and local authorities
can co-operate better and engage in dialogue rather than confrontation.
But it would be foolish to imagine that a more constructive and
professional relationship between councils and the operators and
their agents will do much to allay local fears and local resistance
to masts (paragraphs 46 and 48).
Community consultation
(j) It is essential
that those closely affected by a possible development hear about
it early, directly and accurately. That is the responsibility
of operators at least as much as local authorities (paragraph
48).
(k) Changes in the
planning regime fail to address the main problem, which is that
objection to base stations comes not from local authorities but
from individuals who suffer from loss of amenity or fear of ill-effects
for themselves and their families. Unless it is clear that the
planning system has a robust way of dealing with health fears
expressed by people, the results of the changes will be yet more
frustration (paragraph 49).
Health and Safety: existing installations
(l) Local planning
authorities and local people need to be sure that all equipment
already in operation is safe, as defined by its compliance with
ICNIRP guidelines. We recommend a more proactive approach
to publicising the results of the audits of schools undertaken
so far, which have confirmed that levels of exposure are a tiny
fraction of those in the latest and most stringent guidelines,
and that the media be invited to record the process of audit (paragraphs
50 and 52).
Health and Safety: new installations
(m) There needs to
be general confidence in the compliance of new installations with
the guidelines. If a system of strong independent certification
that a proposed base station met the guidelines on emissions were
in place, the Government's repeated view, that it "should
not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing
an application, to consider the health aspects further",
would be more persuasive (paragraph 53).
Health and Safety: minimum level
(n) Local authorities
and those they represent are entitled to some assurance that RF
fields are being kept as low as possible. We consider that operators
should make a declaration that the RF fields likely to be produced
by a new base station are as low as reasonably practicable, and
that local authorities should be entitled to seek proof of this
in some form to be established in the new Code of Practice (paragraph
56).
Planning and public anxiety
(o) We can see no
case for local planning authorities to start investigating the
extent to which fears are either real or justified. But the authorities
do need some more explicit guidance as to what weight to give
to such anxieties (paragraph 58).
Necessity
(p) The guidance to
be prepared and the new Code of Practice must be tested against
the Human Rights Act, and should be certified by Ministers as
being compliant. Operators should be prepared to demonstrate that
a proposed installation is necessary in the proposed site (paragraph
63).
Site and mast sharing
(q) We welcome the
commitment of the industry to introducing an agreed and comprehensible
means of demonstrating the current degree of mast and site sharing.
Local planning authorities are entitled to be given proof positive
that mast or site sharing has been not only considered but discussed
with potential partners (paragraphs 64 and 68).
Obstacles to sharing
(r) We recommend that
the DETR and DTI together examine deregulatory and other means
of freeing up a range of existing structures for use as a support
for telecoms antennae (paragraph 69).
Sensitive sites
(s) The concentration
on schools in siting policy is understandable, but in some ways
misconceived. Children are everywhere. Guidance to local
planning authorities on siting policy should emphasise early consultation
not only with governors but explicitly with parents
in schools and colleges likely to be affected. Guidance
should also stress the identification of other sensitive sites
where young children in particular are likely to spend a significant
amount of time, such as day care centres, libraries, playgrounds
etc. We recommend publication of outline site selection
criteria to be established in partnership with the operators (paragraphs
72 and 73).
Research
(t) It has taken longer
than we might reasonably have expected to get a research programme
going. We look forward to speedy dissemination of the results
(paragraph 74).
Existing masts
(u) The precautionary
principle cannot only cover new base stations; but nothing
now being proposed addresses the future of existing base stations
which are attracting hostility and suspicion beyond the
random audit referred to above, which is apparently restricted
to schools. We hope that operators might be more receptive than
in the past to public concerns about specific masts. Where they
are not able to resite them then they might consider a more proactive
campaign of local information and consultation (paragraphs 75
and 76).
Industry Ombudsman
(v) The FEI might
usefully consider, in their discussions with other stakeholders,
the merits of an industry Ombudsman to act as a mediator in cases
which have exhausted the normal procedures of appeals and judicial
review, and especially in the handful of cases of existing masts
which cause continuing controversy (paragraph 77).
TETRA
(w) We welcome the
evaluation of the TETRA system now underway and recommend that
the results are made publicly available as soon as possible.
Whilst we appreciate the importance of the system, we are very
disturbed that there seems to have been no examination of the
evidence on potentially adverse health effects before bringing
it into service, and disregard for the conclusions of the Stewart
Report published only two months after contract award, and drawing
on over 20 years of research (paragraph 81).
|
