|
Memorandum by
1. The Mobile Operators
Association (MOA) represents the five
2. These comments on the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill relate to two issues set out in the Bill - the duty to promote democracy and the duty on local authorities to respond to petitions.
Duty to promote democracy
3. The Bill introduces a duty on local authorities to promote understanding among local people of how members of the public can take part in democratic arrangements and what is involved in taking part.
4. The MOA welcomes this new duty. The mobile network operators have a long history in engagement with local communities on proposed mobile phone network developments. The operators, through their Ten Commitments to Best Siting Practice, have put in place mechanisms through which local communities can get engaged in the process of siting and designing mobile telecommunications developments, ahead of the submission of formal planning applications. The operators' experience shows the value of engaging with local stakeholders at an early stage.
5. The principle of establishment of methods to widen the scope of community engagement in the local democratic process is to be welcomed.
Duty on local authorities to respond to petitions
6. Chapter 2 of the Bill makes
provision as to what counts as a petition to a principal local authority which
will trigger the requirements of this Chapter. Petitions schemes must specify
the number of signatures of people who live work and study in a local
authority's area which are required for a petition to be valid. Authorities in
7. The MOA and its members would like further clarification on what, if any, powers a petition might have to force a local authority to respond to it. For example, a minority of mobile network developments can cause concern in local communities and can be subject to local campaigns against the proposal. While it may appear that a large number of people are opposed to a proposal, it may by no means be all local residents. We think it is important that local authorities will need to be able to assess the level of opposition to a proposed new mobile phone mast, while taking into account the developer's (in this case the operator or its agent) approach to addressing people's concerns in the light of national planning guidance and established best practice.
8. While the introduction of this measure may assist in encouraging engagement in the local democratic process, we would argue that a petition should not singularly become a defacto veto of a proposed development. While we agree it will be important to have established schemes through which a local authority must respond to a petition, the petition itself should not be able to halt or reject a proposed development, especially where a development meets the requirements of the relevant planning regulations, legislation and policy.
9. The thrust of the Bill is to encourage genuine two way dialogue between public authorities and local communities, and this is to be welcomed. We have long encouraged greater involvement in the telecoms planning process by local planning officers at the pre-application stage, and the provisions in the Bill may go some way to encouraging more widely planners' early engagement in the telecoms planning process. However, we would suggest that the provision to enable the local authority to hold a public meeting in response to a petition should be used with some caution.
10. In our experience, while public meetings can be of value, we do not believe that they are an appropriate response in every case. This is why we advocate a suite of options in our Code of Best Practice ranging from written communication to site meetings, to public notices to stakeholder round tables, with the most appropriate being applied in each case.
11. We would encourage local authorities, through their local schemes, to be clear regarding exactly when a public meeting might be appropriate and what they hope to achieve from it.
June 2009
|