| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
26 Oct 2004 : Column 409WH—continued
26 Oct 2004 : Column 410WH
Tetra Mast (Perry Barr)
3.30 pm
Mr. Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab): Tetra masts are being erected all over the country as the emergency services install new radio systems. However, there are fierce debates among residents, local authorities and scientists about their effect on health. For the past 12 months, my Labour action team and I have been supporting the residents in the Baltimore road area of Perry Barr. They do not want the 15 m Tetra mast tower on their doorstep. More significantly, they do not want a potential health hazard and actual eyesore next to a primary school that serves 700 children between the ages of three and 11.
When my constituents first told me that the operating company, mmO 2 , had erected a mast without any consultation with the community, I was unaware of the unscrupulous tactics of mobile phone companies. I was astonished to learn that they exploit a flaw in planning guidelines that allows them to erect a mobile mast prior to obtaining planning permission, because it is used for emergency services. The operating companies abuse part of planning policy guidance note 8, which allows the erection of the masts under emergency powers. Effectively, that means applying for retrospective planning permission.
My constituents had every right to believe that, not withstanding emergency powers, the application would eventually be turned down. Public meetings were held, concerns were raised and petitions were presented. The community and parents of the Baltimore road area had the support of the Labour councillor, who did not want the potential health hazard and visual eyesore on their doorstep. They had my support, because I did not want a mobile phone mast on the doorstep of schoolchildren. They had the support of the Labour Administration, who rightly turned down the application. Finally, the community and parents of Baltimore road were supported by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who dismissed a subsequent appeal from Airwave mmO 2 .
All that was in vain, however, because on 7 October, almost a year to the date on which the Tetra mast was erected, planning permission was granted. In the end, a valiant and emotional campaign that put the quality of life of the community on the front line of planning ended in betrayal, when the Liberal-Conservative coalition granted planning permission for the mast.
How can that have happened? That 15 m tower is just one of many needed for the West Midlands police new multi-million pound Tetra radio system, which relies on mobile phone technology instead of radio frequencies. Although the new system promises to be a far more efficient way for police officers to communicate than their current outdated system, the installation of the mast has sparked controversy.
It is claimed that the new installations are being made under emergency powers. Those emergency powers allow the operators to install and use the equipment for up to six months, while they apply for planning permission and make any necessary subsequent appeals to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his planning inspectorate. That is a complete misuse of the planning guidance, of which I hope my hon. Friend
26 Oct 2004 : Column 411WH
the Minister will take note and act on with the telecoms industry. Indeed, one of the recommendations of an inquiry recently held by the all-party group on mobile communications was that the Government should investigate the ways in which emergency provisions can prevail. The inquiry suggests more stringent regulations on what constitutes an emergency, with suitable penalties for operators who do not comply with such procedures.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to provide an emergency service with a digital radio system. Such a system promises improved local and inter-service communications, with better signal quality and high reliability. I am not against our police having the best tools to beat the criminals, particularly if we are to maintain and improve on the reduced crime figures in the area. However, in my constituency, the governors of a 700-pupil school and the Labour team, along with the residents and the parents, are worried about the possible health risks—the mast is only 300 m from Dorrington school. More concerning is the close proximity of residential properties that are fewer than 100 m away.
The Stewart report—the independent study carried out in May 2001—found that the possibility of harm could not be ruled out. It suggested that a precautionary approach should be adopted.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar (Glasgow, Govan) (Lab): My hon. Friend will be aware of various studies that have been undertaken to establish whether such masts pose an increased threat of cancer and other illnesses. As yet, the evidence has not been conclusive. Rightly, the parents of schoolchildren, and people in residential areas, are extremely concerned about the health hazards. Should the Government not have a national strategy to deal with this serious issue?
Mr. Mahmood : I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I totally agree that more work needs to be done. In order to allay residents' fears, it is important that we undertake such studies, and on health grounds we must ensure that the issues are dealt with properly. The Trade and Industry Committee reported that it was
"disturbed at the lack of examination of the potentially adverse health effects of the masts."
Mr. Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that, regardless of the health impact or otherwise of the devices, we have a consultative framework for planning legislation in this country so that ordinary people who live in an affected area have a right not just to be consulted but to have a say as to whether they have such things at the end of their gardens? They have a right to say, "OK, build it, by all means, but we do not want it dumped at the end of our road."
Mr. Mahmood : I thank my hon. Friend. He is right about consultation. One of the things about this escapade is that there has been very little consultation with residents, and one of the residents' reasons for being totally against the mast is that it was put up before any of them had been informed about the process. The complete lack of consultation with the residents of the
26 Oct 2004 : Column 412WH
Baltimore road area has done nothing to stem their fears that something is being hidden from them, and that is creating some distress in the community. Surely, Airwave mmO 2 could have relocated the mast to one of several more suitable industrial sites, away from residential properties and Dorrington school. It could still do so, but it has chosen not to.
One of the recommendations of the all-party group on mobile communications is that, in their development plans, local planning authorities lay down policies and guidance on the siting, design and appearance of telecommunications installations. The group aims to build confidence in the community, involving people in the decision-making process, suggesting a more rigorous approach to the allocation of sites, and throwing the book at communications companies that bend the rules to suit themselves and do not consult local people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) has said.
My constituents were let down by the Liberals and Conservatives, who gave mmO 2 a helping hand to erect a mobile phone mast on Baltimore road. The residents of that area cannot comprehend why the mast has been granted planning approval despite the application's having been refused by the previous planning committee, and a subsequent appeal to the Secretary of State having been lost.
Sadly, the residents were led to believe by a local Liberal councillor that a legal challenge to the decision of the local planning authority was possible. However, even he has now confessed to me by e-mail that his advice was not practical or viable, because of the expense of a judicial review. He is a person who, when challenged by me at a Perry Barr ward committee meeting about whether he supported the residents of the Baltimore road area or the Liberal parliamentary candidate for the neighbouring Birmingham, Hodge Hill constituency—fondly known as "Nokia Davies"—who worked for the telecoms industry installing phone masts, gave his categorical reply that he supported the Liberal candidate and hence not the residents of Perry Barr. What my residents need is constructive advice from their local elected representatives and not crocodile tears with no achievable end.
Clearly the jury is still out on the health risks, and clearly the unsightly and potentially harmful masts should be subject to increased public consultation not only on their siting and appearance but on health grounds. I hope that my hon. Friend will provide a constructive way forward for us to deal with unscrupulous telecoms mast operators. I urge him to refer to all the recommendations made by the all-party mobile communications group and, more importantly, to include health grounds as a planning issue when applications for masts are submitted. The only way that I can help my constituents now is by giving my support in complaining to the local government ombudsman about how the development control committee has dealt with the issue.
I urge my hon. Friend to consider all grounds in planning regulations—I am sure that he will—and particularly those relating to health. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) has said, that should cover the health studies that need to be carried out, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington has noted, the people who want
26 Oct 2004 : Column 413WH
to install the masts should hold proper consultations so that communities can be informed of issues pertaining to them. We have to look for the best possible sites. It is no good companies putting up masts under emergency powers on the first available site without any consultation and then applying for retrospective planning permission.
I say again that the only way for me to help my constituents is to contact the local government ombudsman about the shabby way that the local government planning committee has dealt with my residents in the Baltimore road area. I hope that my hon. Friend will have something to add to that.
3.42 pm
Paul Clark (Gillingham) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) on securing this debate and on raising what are important concerns for his constituents and every Member of Parliament. I have no doubt that we have all received correspondence on similar issues. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) for their contributions. This is an important debate, and the concerns that they raised are shared by many of our constituents and us as Members.
I will start by explaining where we are vis-à-vis the case in question and the Airwave programme, looking at some of the possibilities, and emphasising the importance that the Government place on health issues and related matters—I know that they are of particular concern.
The debate relates to Tetra, which stands for terrestrial trunked radio and is a standard for digital private mobile radio. Tetra is a European standard agreed in the 1990s by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. There is no "Tetra project" as such—as I have said, it is a radio standard—so the police are not the only organisation to use its technology.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr is right to say that Airwave mmO 2 is currently rolling out a Tetra system on behalf of the Home Office for the police in England, Wales and Scotland. It uses the digital Tetra technology because it offers higher standards. Indeed, my hon. Friend alluded to the fact that it will undoubtedly improve matters for police officers and for the general public, and recognised that such a change was required in order to meet those goals.
The Tetra system will ensure that police forces throughout Great Britain can communicate directly with one another. They cannot do so with the old analogue systems, which are incompatible and do not provide sufficient coverage or clarity of signal. The new Tetra system will provide that coverage and clarity. It will also provide additional services that are not currently available: not only does it offer better security, but data other than normal voice communications can be transmitted.
The roll-out of Airwave is progressing well. It is currently available to 40 forces and about 78,000 police users. The Government expect it to be available to all forces by mid-2005 and that it will be fully operational by mid-2006. About 80 per cent. of the 3,000 masts required for Airwave to provide a national service have
26 Oct 2004 : Column 414WH
been approved without causing untoward circumstances. Obviously, further masts may be a problem—the one referred to by my hon. Friend at Baltimore road is one such—but they will be few and far between.
Mr. Simon : I have no doubt that the Minister will come to this matter in a moment, but such masts cannot be that few or that far between. In my constituency of Erdington, which is next door to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, people have come to me during the past year having woken up one morning to discover a huge, loud, dirty and ugly mobile phone mast at the bottom of their garden. Such masts have no planning permission; they do not require it, because they are apparently temporary structures—although, lo and behold, they never go away. It cannot happen that rarely; if it is happening in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend, it must be happening all over the place. People are furious, not about the principle of masts or the health implications but about the fact that these things suddenly appear the bottom of the garden—and they have no say in the matter.
Paul Clark : I thank my hon. Friend for that. I was specifically talking about the masts required to allow the roll-out of the Tetra system, not mobile phone masts per se. I recognise what my hon. Friend says, but as I said in my introductory remarks, we will all have faced problems over communications masts—it may be clearer if I put it that way. Certainly, as far as the Tetra roll-out is concerned, the vast majority have gone through okay, but some have caused problems, one of those obviously being the one that we are discussing now.
I understand that the mast at Baltimore road is necessary to help complete the network for the West Midlands police force, which adopted the Airwave network earlier this year. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that at some key sites it has been necessary for Airwave to install communications equipment and to seek planning approval retrospectively. We are well aware of that; I shall deal with the question a little later. The company had to do that in order to ensure complete radio coverage of the area with no black holes, otherwise the local police forces would be unable to transfer to the enhanced communications network as planned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr clearly explained that the development control committee of Birmingham city council was initially minded to reject the application for the Baltimore road development on potential health grounds. The equipment was perceived as a risk to the health of residents and to that of children attending the nearby school, to which my hon. Friend referred. On 7 October, the development control committee considered a full planning permission application, and was minded to approve it.
There was a possibility that enforcement action towards the removal of the mast could have been taken at the stage to which my hon. Friend referred, but it was held in abeyance until the outcome of the application, which was considered on 7 October. As my hon. Friend is aware, it is normal practice for a local authority to hold certain actions in abeyance until various stages
26 Oct 2004 : Column 415WH
have been completed and followed through to exhaustion, and then to use enforcement if required. Having said that, there are ways to challenge that decision and my hon. Friend is minded to support consideration by the local government ombudsman of maladministration if a matter has been handled incorrectly by the planning authority or if someone feels that they have suffered an injustice in the processes followed.
I would advise my hon. Friend again to exhaust all procedures with the local authorities to give them a chance to rectify the situation before taking things to the next stage. That is common sense, and I am sure he is aware of that. The Government give responsibility to local planning authorities, which are closer to the ground, to take decisions about local communities and local planning applications.
Mr. Mahmood : Would the Government support whatever decisions were taken by the local planning authorities?
Paul Clark : I am coming to the local planning authorities' options. At certain stages, the Government and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister can be involved. We have laid down a system that ensures that there are procedures to be followed in dealing with these matters. On planning regulations, especially for telecommunications developments, any installation that is in a designated area—such as an area of outstanding natural beauty or an SSSI—or one elsewhere that is more than 15 m high, is the subject of a full planning application. Outside the designated areas that I mentioned, licensed communication code system operators are authorised under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 to install specified communications apparatus without the need to make a planning application to the local authority. Certain types of development, however, such as the installation of ground-based masts of up to 15 m in height, are subject to a prior approval procedure, which allows the local planning authority the opportunity to say whether it wishes to approve details of the siting or appearance of the installation.
However, it is for the local planning authority to decide whether a particular development would require an application for prior approval or a full planning application, and it would have to decide in the light of local development plan policies and any other material considerations, including representations for and against any specific application.
A number of options are open to local authorities in terms of enforcement, and it is a matter for the local authority to decide what is the best course of action in the light of the issue it is dealing with. That is the broad line along which we expect local authorities to operate.
Mr. Sarwar : I appreciate that the matter is for the local authority to decide, but it is a national issue, not a regional one, and parents and others in all parts of the United Kingdom are rightly concerned, especially when there is professional advice that mobile use by
26 Oct 2004 : Column 416WH
individuals affects health and increases the risk of cancer and other illnesses. Should there not be some national strategy to allay people's fears?
Paul Clark : I recognise what my hon. Friend is saying about the health issue, and I will come to that. There is a national issue, but a Government can only lay down a framework of options and processes for planning applications, and local authorities will then make a judgment. I will come on to health because it is a serious issue of concern to many.
I want to deal now with the enforcement powers open to local authorities. First, there is the operation to serve a planning contravention notice. That may be used where it appears that there has been a breach of planning control, and the local planning authority requires information about activities on the land. Secondly, authorities have the option of serving an enforcement notice, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr referred to and which requires steps to be taken to remedy the breach within a given period of time. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice, but there is a maximum penalty of £20,000 if it is upheld on conviction.
Thirdly, authorities have the power to serve a stop notice, which has the effect of immediately stopping any activity that contravenes the planning control guidelines. Fourthly, they have the power to serve a breach of condition notice where there is a failure to comply with any condition or limitation imposed on the granting of planning permission. Fifthly, an injunction can be sought through the High Court or the county court, which would restrain any actual or expected breach of planning control. Finally, local authority planning officers have powers of entry on to land to gain the information that they require to assess what is going on and to undertake the enforcement process. Local authorities, whatever the planning application or the activity that has gone on, have a wide range of powers open to them.
There are emergency development powers. There is no specific definition under the orders on general permitted development as to what emergency works are, but one is contained in the planning policy guidance note 8, on telecommunications. Emergency developments are various
"works the execution of which at the time it is proposed to execute them is requisite in order to put an end to, or prevent, the arising of circumstances then existing or imminent which are likely to cause"
"danger to persons or property,"
"the interruption of any service provided by the operator's system or . . . substantial loss to the operator".
Mr. Mahmood : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Paul Clark : I will not, as I have given way a number of times and I am conscious that I want to say a number of things to respond to hon. Members' concerns.
We take health concerns seriously, as we would be expected to. The Home Office has requested the National Radiological Protection Board to consider the issues of possible health effects caused by Tetra base
26 Oct 2004 : Column 417WH
stations. That was comprehensively addressed in a report by the board's independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation, chaired by Sir Richard Doll. That report, which is available on the board's website, noted that the signals from Tetra base stations, like their mobile phone counterparts, are not pulsed—there was concern that they are.
A number of steps have been taken, and the emissions from base stations under Tetra are well within international guidelines. I assure hon. Members that we continue to review the work of and to work with the industry and independent organisations to consider the possibilities on the health side, including the excellent work undertaken by the all-party parliamentary mobile communications group, some of which has been mentioned. We have undertaken to review the group's recommendations in taking forward our policies on planning for telecommunications.
Time defeats us, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr on securing this debate on an issue that is important, not only for his constituents but for us all. The Government are conscious of the concerns raised by hon. Members.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |