---

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on using this opportunity to secure a debate on the subject of planning procedures, mobile phone base stations and many other things besides. The topic is clearly important to him, both as the representative of his constituents—he described some of the difficulties they had been experiencing—and as the secretary of the all-party group on mobile communications. He has a reputation for carrying out that post with great effectiveness.

As evidenced by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), the topic is of interest to many Members, in part due to the widespread public interest in the subject. Indeed, the Government recognise that in some cases that public interest takes the form of grave concern, especially about the siting of such developments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey described.

The topic has been and remains high on the Government's agenda. We constantly review and assess our policies against the latest developments, and strive to maintain balance between public demand for mobile services and the need to protect the environment and manage public health concerns. I was struck by my hon. Friend's concern about the jargon in the language used in the planning system, which can sometimes act as a barrier to people's understanding of the process that they are trying to influence. It is, therefore, a barrier to their having effective influence. That is a constant problem not only in the planning system; we all try to ensure that our constituents can understand how such systems work so that they can have appropriate influence on them.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), whom he and others met recently. As he knows, the Government welcomed the publication of the all-party group's report of its "parliamentary hearing" into mobile phones, base stations and planning. I hope that in the meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and subsequently, we have shown that we recognise the tremendous work that was done in preparing the report and by those who presented written and oral evidence to the all-party group. It was clear that everyone who participated in the process had a genuine interest in improving the planning for telecommunications developments. Of course, the
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 743
 
group was able to draw on the expert knowledge and advice, as well as the practical experience, of those participating in the hearing process.

The Government have taken receipt of the report and are giving its recommendations careful consideration. The report will help to inform the decisions that will be necessary in taking forward Government policy on planning for telecommunications.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on covering a huge amount of territory in a short time, as well as taking an intervention from our hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to make a detailed response to each of the recommendations the group made—[Interruption.] I hear cries of "Shame" from the Back Benches. I shall try to address some of the key recommendations and set out the Government's current position, and deal with some of the specific points that my hon. Friend raised this evening.

First, let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and other hon. Members that careful consideration was given to the current planning arrangements before they were introduced. My hon. Friend mentioned the Stewart report on mobile phones and health. The report, published in 2000, recommended that telecommunication development be subject to the normal planning process to improve local consultation. As he said, the all-party group's report recommends that the Government now adopt that recommendation.

The Government considered the Stewart group's recommendation in detail and accepted the importance of ensuring that effective public consultation took place. As a result, in August 2001, we significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for telecommunications development. We specifically increased the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications—forgive me, but I need to use the specific words used in the system—from 28 and 42 days to a uniform 56 days and strengthened public consultation requirements on prior approval procedures so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission. We also increased the fee from £35 to £190, to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation. The fee has now risen to £220. I may say a bit more about that later. Our revised arrangements for prior approval applications have the same consultation requirements as for applications for planning permission.

We believe that we have met the concerns that led the Stewart group to make the recommendation for full planning permission. There is concern about the fact that, under the prior approval procedures, consent is deemed to be granted if no decision has been made after 56 days—a point that my hon. Friend raises. However, those arrangements are necessary to ensure that development is not delayed. It has been suggested to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the 56-day period should be extended because notification is sometimes received by the operator on the 57th day, or that there should be a seven-day period at the end of 56 days that still counts as a valid notification period.
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 744
 

I know that this will not be to my hon. Friend's liking, but we do not think that extending the 56-day period would resolve the problem; it would only defer it. We have already made the switch from the two periods to the uniform 56 days. The problem of notification being received on the day after the end of the period, or whatever, would remain the same even if we extended the time period; regrettably, some local planning authorities would still miss the deadline occasionally. The discipline of the prior approval arrangements is still needed because many authorities fail to meet their best value targets for determining planning applications.

There are telecommunications developments under the permitted development rights conferred by the GPDO. I emphasise that those installations are, by definition, the smallest and most discreet developments. The Government do not want to restrict those rights because local planning authorities need to focus their attention on the developments that will have the greatest impact. Furthermore, network operators estimate that only about 15 per cent. of installations are allowed under those permitted development rights.

The current arrangements have the effect of encouraging network operators to install smaller apparatus on existing buildings and structures, wherever possible, thus minimising the environmental impact of such developments. However, there is still a need to ensure that people are properly consulted. Simply because those small developments do not need planning permission does not mean that there is no public consultation. The code of best practice that was produced jointly by local and central Government and the mobile phone industry clearly says that every potential site is rated using the traffic light model. My hon. Friend did not raise that issue, but we must realise that it is an important part of the system. The traffic light model determines the level of public consultation that will be required if the site is selected for the installation. The Government believe, therefore, that limiting the rights of network operators to install telecommunications equipment would be detrimental to their ability to meet public demand for mobile services. More important, it would not materially increase or improve consultation with local communities.

Of course, requiring full planning permission for all telecommunications developments would have significant consequences for the planning system. Removing permitted development rights for telecommunications development would increase the amount of casework for local planning authorities at a time when they are struggling to find the resources to handle a growing volume of planning applications. Furthermore, these planning cases would be more likely to end up as planning appeals, either because the local planning authority had failed to determine the application in reasonable time or because an application had been refused.

The statistics from the Planning Inspectorate suggest that a disproportionate number of telecommunications applications are refused at local level. Approximately two thirds of telecommunications cases are approved on appeal compared to the usual rate of one third for all cases. Of course, the Government recognise why so many applications are refused at a local level, and I will
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 745
 
return to this in a moment. However, as Members may be aware, the Planning Inspectorate has had to deal with a greatly increased work load and we do not want add to the burden. The Government believe therefore that removing the permitted development arrangements would significantly add to the burden of the planning system to the detriment of all applications and appeals.

I appreciate that one of the reasons that the all-party group's report recommended that the GPDO be reviewed was to ensure that it was easier to understand and interpret. Members may be aware that, on 10 September this year, the ODPM published a research study on permitted development rights from Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Ltd. This is the first phase of the wide-ranging review of the GPDO that my hon. Friend requested.

The report from the study also concluded that the GPDO could be clearer in respect of part 24, which relates to the permitted development rights for licensed communications code system operators. The Government accept this criticism of the order, and we will be looking to clarify part 24 through the review process. We are working towards undertaking a public consultation exercise early next year, and I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all interested parties to comment at that stage. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that that is an important new development.

As I said a few moments ago, the Government appreciate why so many applications are refused at a local level. We recognise the public concern that leads to campaigns against telecommunication developments. Concern about the siting and design of such developments is fuelled by public concern about the perceived health risks associated with this technology. We agree with the group's view—it has been reiterated tonight—that

"the perceived risk and fear arising out of health concerns could be reduced by the adoption of consultation methods which are aimed at involving communities and others more."

The Government have repeatedly stated that we are particularly sympathetic to full consultation with local people. We have also said that we will look carefully at the group's recommendations to see what more can be done in this area. We are doing this and, interestingly given the timing of this debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will make a statement about this shortly. I regret that I cannot say anything tonight, but watch this space.

I said that the Government prepared the code of best practice, which includes the traffic light model, to ensure the delivery of significantly better and more effective communication and consultation between operators, local authorities and local people. The mobile network operators and local planning authorities are well aware of the importance the Government attach to the observance of the best practice guidance set out in the code. Ministers in the ODPM regularly meet the Mobile Operators Association to discuss a range of issues, including operators' progress in meeting their commitments to improved local consultation.

My hon. Friend may know that the mobile network operators have commissioned a second independent review of their ten commitments, which will demonstrate quantitatively how their operations and
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 746
 
procedures align with the requirements of the code. To complement that research, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is commissioning a study to assess the impact that the code has had more widely since its introduction, the way in which local authorities have implemented the code and the way in which the public has perceived its operation. Perhaps some of the questions that were raised about jargon and accessibility will form part of that discussion.

I hope that the study will provide the Government with evidence on whether the code has been effective and whether there are any areas of weakness that need to be addressed. In the light of that evidence, the Government will consider whether changes to the code would be appropriate. Clearly, my hon. Friend and the all-party group will contribute to that process.

The work is being overseen by the electronic communications working group, which is chaired by ODPM officials and on which there are representatives from local and central Government as well as the industry. It also includes officials from the devolved Administrations—I think that that matter was also raised in the all-party group report. The aims of the group include developing working relationships among Government Departments, local authorities and operators to improve planning procedures continuously. We believe that the work of the group will go a considerable way towards addressing recommendations 3 and 18 of the all-party group's report.

I want to return to the question of planning fees. On 16 September, the Government issued a consultation document entitled "Changes to the System of Planning Fees in England". The document sets out the Government's proposal to raise the fee for installing a telecommunications mast from £220 to £240. However, it is widely acknowledged that such applications to a local planning authority, under both the prior approval and planning permission procedures, result in a disproportionate amount of work for planning officers, as I said earlier. The Government thus consider that there might be justification for charging a still higher fee. I know that the all-party group also supports that view and that the Local Government Association gave evidence to the group to that effect. Network operators also recognised the resource problem in local authorities and responded openly to the group's suggestion that the industry should consider the extent to which it would be reasonable for the fee for applications to fund the shortfall.

In the light of that, we have invited views on whether the work undertaken by local planning authorities on telecommunications mast applications is sufficiently different from the work involved in processing standard applications to justify an increased fee. The review of fees is also considering whether to regulate the process for charging for pre-application discussions, which was another of the all-party group's concerns. The consultation period on fees closes on 9 December, and I would encourage anybody with relevant comments or evidence to respond to the document. The new fees regime will come into force on 1 April 2005.

My hon. Friend raised questions about mast sharing. We agree that the number of telecommunications masts should be kept at a minimum level that is compatible with effective network operation. I assure him that
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 747
 
Government policy is firmly to encourage mast sharing when appropriate. The conditions attached to the powers granted to individual mobile operators by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which are incorporated in their operating licences, include a requirement for an operator to investigate mast sharing before trying to put up any new mast. It is quite right to stress that it is important for good use to be made of existing masts and other structures when installing new antennae.

My hon. Friend also raised questions about sites and design. There are several different design solutions for masts, and we want to ensure that they are used
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 748
 
creatively and innovatively so that masts that look like trees or street furniture may be developed. We can, and want to, do more on that subject.

My hon. Friend also mentioned technical advice. The Government are making available an additional £425 million to local planning authorities over the next three years to help to improve planning performance. The authorities are free to spend the money as they choose. We would welcome the idea of them buying access collectively to telecommunications expertise if that would be more cost-effective.

---