HC Deb 07 February 1997 vol 289 cc1316-22

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]

2.35 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North)

I am grateful to have the opportunity of a debate on the subject of telecommunication masts and planning guidance.

First, let me explain the background to the debate. The issue has been boiling on and off in the local and national media for more than a year. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who is my neighbour, raised the issue on the Adjournment on 1 March last year. There are now four appeals against planning refusal that affect a particular area of our two constituencies. Those appeals prompted me to apply for the debate.

I am grateful for the support of all councillors of all parties on the matter, and of others. It is not a party political matter and should not become so. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk regrets that he cannot be present for the debate, but he wishes to be associated with my remarks, as I was with his.

Back in March last year, my hon. Friend expressed the general fear that telecom masts would sprout up all over the countryside and that even areas of special landscape interest would be affected. The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, my hon. Friend the Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones), responded positively and sensitively to the points raised. He focused on the code of best practice that he published shortly afterwards in April, and promised that the code would be closely monitored. He also emphasised the sensible point that the best way forward was for all parties—mobile telecom companies, planning authorities, those locally affected and conservation groups—to maintain a constructive dialogue.

I took up the challenge on behalf of my constituency. I have initiated and attended meetings with councillors and planning officials. Local authorities and others have had to learn a new technical language—including terms such as footprints, coverage and sight lines—in order to understand the key questions. Some authorities have not been as fleet-footed as they might have been. I am pleased, however, that Colchester borough council has eventually engaged the mobile telecom companies in serious discussions as to how best they could help to resolve each other's problems.

I invited all the companies making applications in my area to come and see me. Most came, and I should like to thank Orange, Cellnet and Vodaphone for taking the trouble to keep me informed. After some initial reluctance in some cases, they were all keen to explain their obligations under their licences and anxious to avoid unnecessary controversy.

I warned all the companies of the backlash that they would provoke if they pressed their proposals. Cellnet has wisely withdrawn its proposals, and Orange this morning informed me that it is withdrawing two of the four appeals that are pending. In a fax this morning, Orange states: You will be aware that we currently have failed to obtain Planning Permission on three locations already, and have lodged Planning Appeals on two of them. Since these appeals were lodged, and as a direct result of your intervention, we have been in discussion with the other three operators". That is progress, I suppose. At least the operators are looking to use one shared facility, as opposed to a multiplicity of sites, although the situation is still unsatisfactory.

I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister is constrained from commenting on specific planning proposals that may at some future date end up on his desk requiring a decision. However. I make it absolutely clear that I am here today because of the potential threat to the historic landscapes of the Stour valley in my constituency. The skylines in and around Dedham vale, which so inspired John Constable two centuries ago, have remained almost unchanged until today. Not surprisingly, the threat of telecom masts is a highly charged issue in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk.

The region is an area of outstanding natural beauty—AONB—and has specific protections. I acknowledge that protection, which has prompted the companies concerned to give up hope of erecting masts within the AONB. However, two companies have written to inform me of applications outside the area that have been refused by the Colchester borough council which they propose to take to appeal. Sites such as Gun hill and Hill Top farm, as their names suggest, are prominent and visible. The structures, which are more than 20 m—or over 60 ft—tall, will be seen for miles around and will dominate the skyline.

Since my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate last year and following our most helpful meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I have sought to reassure my constituents in several ways. First, I have told them that the world is watching the mobile telecom companies. They have special privileges in the planning process, as set out in planning policy guidance note 8. Colchester borough council advises me that the thread running through the guidance is that operators are obliged to provide a certain level of service under the Telecommunications Act 1984. That is a material planning consideration that should prevail over—or at least be given equal weight to—all other considerations. However, the companies have wisely been cautious about asserting those privileges hitherto—seeming to prefer agreement to imposition, as set out in the code of best practice.

Secondly, such impositions in sensitive areas in the face of furious local opposition and national concern about heritage sites would be a setback for the industry. As I have said, in my meetings with the companies concerned, I warned them of the backlash that they would invite from Members of Parliament and conservationists. Thirdly, I continue to set great store by the Government's general commitment to the environment and the countryside. I have taken it on trust from my right hon. and hon. Friends that what is most feared for the Stour valley will not be allowed to happen.

There will now be appeals, and local people may be forgiven for feeling that there is a question mark over the Government's commitment. I am advised by the Colchester borough council planning department that, ultimately, the matter rests in the hands of Ministers. The code of best practice seemed intended to avoid such a confrontational approach by the companies. As far as the Council for the Protection of Rural England and other conservationists are concerned, the code will have failed if it allows companies to lodge appeals over the heads of the local planning authorities. PPG8 seems destined to bias any inspector's report in favour of development.

Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to address his reply to the general effects of applications for development just outside the boundaries of protected areas such as AONBs. Is the presumption in favour of development inviolate, or does protecting our natural heritage come first? A constituent reiterated that point in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which he said: concern would be much eased if we could be assured that, in the event of appeals against the local planning authority's decision, the Inspector would have both the power and the intention to take into account the environmental impact in each case. How will the balance be struck? Do the protections afforded to AONBs, national parks and other sensitive areas extend to sites outside the boundaries of such areas if the development in question would adversely affect the landscape? Crucially, in light of the appeals that are now going ahead, is it not time to announce a review of PPG8? Colchester borough council and I have consistently pressed for such action. Could there be any better way of signalling to the operators that their activities will be severely constrained in order to protect the environment if they press ahead with their plans?

In his reply, will my hon. Friend the Minister bear it in mind that technology may rescue us from making those choices sooner than we might think? How long will it be before mobile communications are taken over by satellites instead of terrestrial radio? What is the prospect of cellphone systems with much more local, much smaller, less visually intrusive antennae? The representatives of one company that visited me told me how technology would eventually be able to conceal transceivers in roadside signs, trees and lamp posts. What will happen tomorrow to the huge aerial arrays that are under consideration today? We are told that they will be taken down. But they will be far too useful to their owners for them to allow them to be taken down. Our planning law does not adapt well to the practice of temporary consents.

Christian civilisation has waited nearly 2,000 years for mobile phones. Our precious countryside, which has evolved over thousands of centuries, is changing faster than ever before in what amounts to the twinkling of an eye under the pressures of the modern world. Can we merely say no on this occasion? When we sing: And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England's mountains green?", are we simply referring to a commodity that the British people will be happy to trade in for an extra minute's conversation as they drive up the A12? If we reflect upon it, I think not. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will concur. I am grateful to him for giving up his time to attend the debate, and I look forward to his response.

2.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)

I suddenly thought it was Sunday, for a moment.

I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said about the impact of telecommunication masts on the countryside. I was about to say that it is a hobby, but it is a matter of distinct long-term importance that my hon. Friend has made clear to the House. We understand his argument when we think of the countryside that he is talking about, lives in, works round and is part of his and other constituencies.

I shall start in reverse, as it were, and take up the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed about what happens to telecommunications installations when they become redundant. In an age when technologies develop rapidly, it is something that we must consider. The House will be aware that installations by licensed telecommunications companies are governed by the Telecommunications Act 1984 as well as—I am not putting one above the other—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Both the telecommunications code and the operators' licence obligations require that apparatus must be removed when redundant. Provisions under the planning Act reinforce this requirement. It is also a condition of development permitted by the General Permitted Development Order 1995 that redundant apparatus is removed, and that local planning authorities may attach, if they wish—I hope that some of them are awake to this—similar conditions to planning permissions that they grant.

My hon. Friend talked about satellites. These are fine for transmitting television programmes to millions of viewers but, unfortunately, they are apparently not suitable at present for systems that must provide for an extremely large number of two-way conversations at the same time.

My hon. Friend talked also about possibilities of making masts smaller. That is already happening. I understand that many base stations are already a passable imitation of street lights and antennae serving individual streets. They can be no larger than burglar alarms. The difficulty is that the range and capacity of this smaller apparatus is limited and therefore not suitable for many locations, especially in the open countryside. The choice is often between one large mast and a number of smaller but still fairly obvious ones serving the same area. We can expect, however, that technological refinements will make masts smaller and less obtrusive. We are working in discussions with the operators and the Department of Trade and Industry.

Here and now there is a continuing need sensitively to accommodate masts in the landscape. Our policy is to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems because of the benefits that they can bring. For example, fast, reliable and cost-effective communications can help to attract new business and assist established firms. I understand that they even assist farmers in the countryside.

There are other benefits too, such as safety and security. Accessible communications systems can reduce the need to travel, using the telephone driver information systems. They can enable more effective use to be made of the existing road network. I must emphasise, however, that this must be done while honouring our commitment to protect the environment, and especially our best and most sensitive areas. In short, the Government's land use planning policy seeks to balance the national importance of the telecommunications industry with the need to protect visual amenity.

My hon. Friend mentioned specific developments in his area. As he appreciates, it is not appropriate for me to comment on such matters at this stage, given that appeals may be lodged. Our general policy on the development of telecommunications is set out in planning policy guidance Note 8, which facilitates the growth of new and existing systems, while honouring our commitments to environmental objectives, including well established national policies for the protection of the countryside and urban areas. The PPG confirms the need, in the context of telecommunications development, to protect the best and most sensitive environments. Those include national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and conservation areas. The need to protect those and other defined areas is recognised under both licensing and planning legislation.

Code system operators' licences may impose their own environmental conditions, which help to protect those areas. Equally, the control of development under the Planning Act recognises the special needs of those areas. The installation of any mast in an area of outstanding natural beauty or other protected area is subject to full planning control.

Elsewhere, the general permitted development order allows code system operators to carry out various types of development, including the erection of masts of up to 15 m high, without the need to apply for planning permission. That freedom was reviewed in 1992, when we decided that the 15 m limit struck the right balance. Masts over the 15 m limit require a full planning application, but that does not mean that local planning authorities are powerless to prevent masts under 15 m in unsuitable locations. A code system operator wishing to erect a mast of up to 15 m in height must apply to the local planning authority for its determination as to whether it wishes to approve details of the mast siting and appearance, and the authority can refuse approval to one or both of those aspects if it considers that it is justified. As with applications made for other kinds of development, a code system operator has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment when the authorisation sought from a local planning authority is not forthcoming.

Decisions taken by local planning authorities on planning applications, and by the Secretary of State on appeals, must be made in accordance with the local authority's development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National planning policies, too, may be a governing factor when such decisions are made. In the context of telecommunications applications, that means not only the policies set out in PPG8 but relevant policies in other guidance notes. For instance, PPG8 cites green-belt policies—PPG2; countryside policies—PPG7; and policies for nature conservation—now PPG9—as particularly relevant.

To help keep the number of masts to a minimum, our planning policy guidance encourages mast-sharing, and licences issued by the Department of Trade and Industry require operators to consider that. There are, however, technical constraints. A choice must sometimes be made between one larger and more conspicuous mast shared by several operators and more than one smaller, less conspicuous masts for a number of individual operators.

Local authority development plans apply national landscape conservation policies on a site-specific basis and may well formulate policies for locally defined landscape areas. Increasingly, plans contain policies and proposals specifically for telecommunications development. PPG8 specifically advises that those should be formulated having regard to the need to protect the best and most sensitive environments. While such established planning policies that have been the subject of public consultation form the basis for decision-making, other material considerations will come into play on a case-by-case basis. Visual amenity is one such consideration and the visibility of a mast from a designated area, such as an area of outstanding natural beauty, can be a material consideration in relation to both prior approval determinations and full planning applications.

I have sought briefly to explain the land-use policy framework, which offers a firm basis for decisions on proposals for telecommunications masts. Planning authorities have a substantial degree of control over that type of development through the prior approval procedure and the need for a full planning application to be submitted in sensitive areas.

My hon. Friend mentioned the code of best practice that my Department published last year. To encourage better working of the prior approval procedure, we set up a working group consisting of representatives of local planning authorities, the code system operators, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Office The code has been generally welcomed as setting out a helpful information base and providing a positive framework for code operators and local planning authorities to work together over the siting of masts. It encourages co-operation to make it easier for prior approval applications to be dealt with effectively within the 28-day period allowed. The code refers to designated areas and locations of environmental sensitivity.

When the code was launched, we undertook to reconvene the working group to review its operation. With the help of the code operators and local planning authorities, the group is monitoring the working of the code. My Department has undertaken a preliminary survey of the code's effectiveness. One of the survey's findings was that 11 per cent. of the applications for prior approval reported during the survey period were refused by the local authorities.

All in all, that demonstrates the point that I made early on that local authorities have substantial control over such mast development, particularly in and around sensitive areas. I welcome the continuing dialogue within the group, which is considering the suggestions for amending and amplifying the code in the light of the practical experience of its operation. We must consider my hon. Friend's case as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Three o'clock.