HC Deb 20 June 1997 vol 296 cc597-604

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

2.30 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise again on the Adjournment of the House the subject of telecommunications masts and planning guidance. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) — whom I welcome to his new position—may not be familiar with the previous debate, although I drew his officers' attention to it. I last raised the matter on 7 February this year, and I shall not rehearse that speech now. However, I shall summarise the difficulties that we face in my constituency and in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who wishes to associate himself with my remarks. He apologises to the House for not being present as he is attending to constituency matters.

The nub of the issue is as follows. It has been the Government's long-standing policy to promote a coherent network of mobile telecommunications across the country. Initially, that network was concentrated in areas of high population where planning issues regarding conservation of the countryside were not pressing. However, as the networks of telecommunications providers, such as Orange and BT Mobile, have been extended into more sensitive areas, the needs of the telecommunications systems have started to conflict with the Government's priorities regarding conservation of the countryside.

I extend this explanation to the Minister in a bipartisan spirit. I am sure that he agrees with expanding telecommunications for many reasons, including safety, assisting economic development and improving bad communications in rural areas during times of bad weather and so on. However, he will agree also that the Government have a responsibility to preserve the countryside.

My constituency comprises the Essex side of Dedham vale, which was made famous by Constable's great paintings. The skies above our heads that he painted are virtually unchanged today. However, we are confronted with the possibility that those views will be marred by stark vertical structures that will be erected in prominent places in order to achieve good coverage. Effective communications require line of sight between the aerial and the mobile telephone. There has been much discussion with the telecommunications companies, with the local planning authority—Colchester borough council—and Babergh district council. I thank the telecommunications companies, because they have taken great trouble to see me to explain their difficulties.

The nub of the issue is that there has been a planning inquiry involving an especially sensitive site. The area is designated as one of outstanding natural beauty and the site chosen is just outside the boundary.

On 7 February, I sought to secure an assurance from the then Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, a south London Member—who is now my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford)—on what would be the priority in the sort of case to which I am referring. The then Minister was, of course, restricted from making any specific comments about a case still coming through the system. My hon. Friend, however, gave me one extremely useful assurance. He referred to planning policy guidance note 8, issued by the Department of the Environment, which specifically advises that those should be formulated"— that is a reference to plans— 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."— [Official Report, 7 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 1322–23.] That is clear. That seemed to be the then Minister placing his interpretation on PPG8. In any event, the note is only guidance and does not provide a binding, decisive factor to be taken into account in the mind of an inspector. That was before the public inquiry.

During the public inquiry hearings, I put a question to the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 3 June. I asked about PPG8 and asked him specifically to reiterate the assurance that I have read to the House. The Minister kindly said: I shall ensure that my Department corresponds with him"— that is me— on the findings. The Minister was referring to the findings of the inquiry. He declined, of course, to comment on the particular inquiry. He added: I shall consider seriously any results that I receive."— [Official Report, 3 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 177.] The first purpose of the debate, obviously, is to try to extract the original assurance that I was given before the general election. The second is to ensure—I am seeking an assurance from the Minister—that the Minister is prepared to call in. The planning process is confusing because I understand that the planning inspector has the power, already delegated to him by the Secretary of State, to determine the application. I ask the Minister to provide clarification. If he can do so, that will be helpful. At some stage, however, the Secretary of State must have the power to intervene on the findings.

I want to be reassured that if the findings are against the borough council, against the objectors and in favour of development in a very sensitive area, the Secretary of State will do all within his legal power to ensure that the application does not proceed any further.

I accept that perhaps we are talking about the best of a bad job in the circumstances. The structure will be visible from certain areas and it will be prominent. The danger is that a precedent will be set, and the Minister might be able to address himself to the general point rather than the particular points of the application.

A precedent will be set. The Council for the Protection of Rural England, for example, is watching the outcome of the inquiry carefully. The question is which takes precedence: the urgency of extending mobile telecommunications coverage, or our priceless natural heritage?

There is an obligation for the operators to remove the masts if they are no longer needed, but once the masts are installed, they will be too convenient to take down. They will be there for the duration, and it will be impossible for us to go back.

I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that the relevant technology is developing rapidly. The ability to cover areas discreetly rather than with prominent telecommunications masts is improving. I doubt whether satellite communication will take over; that is not the way in which the current technology seems to be heading, but who knows what the future holds? Twenty years ago, who would have thought that so many people would have mobile telephones?

It is most probable that the use of smaller aerials covering smaller areas will become the accepted practice in sensitive areas. One of the companies whose representatives came to see me subsequently sent me a picture of a rather unlikely-looking tree, which was an aerial in disguise. I am not sure whether that is the answer. It looks like a tree that has had its top blown off. That is the general shape— I am forbidden to use visual aids in the Chamber— and one can imagine a mast being concealed in that structure. Other options include concealment in a flagpole or even in roadside signs. That would seem the appropriate development in a sensitive area such as Dedham vale and other special areas, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

If it means waiting, and that we do not have exactly the coverage that we would like for all the networks in that area for a period, that would be a reasonable price to pay for maintaining an important part of the countryside.

I am told—this came out in discussions during the inquiry—that the test for positive coverage is not whether one can receive a reasonable signal from a hands-free mobile telephone installed in a car, but whether one can receive a reasonable signal on a hand-held telephone in a vehicle. Most of the companies have a disrupted signal over most of the Dedham vale, but it is not a complete black spot in the networks.

It seems a reasonable request that the Secretary of State should carefully examine this case for the precedent that it will set. One company has already told me that it will examine other spots in the valley where it could establish further masts to improve coverage, for which the present case will provide a precedent. That must apply to many other sensitive areas in many other parts of the country.

I hope that the Minister will reiterate the assurance that was given before the general election. I seek an assurance that, within the powers of the Secretary of State, all means will be used to ensure that that precedent is not set. That is what I ask on behalf of my constituents. I cannot emphasise enough how many and how strong the representations on the matter have been. Representations have been made to me not just by local people, but by national organisations. I hope that at the end of the process I shall be a smiling and happy Member of Parliament, along with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk.

2.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on his success in securing a second Adjournment debate on this subject within a few months, and thank him for his kind words of welcome to me in my post. I hope that I shall be able to let him leave the Chamber, if not with a radiant smile on his face, at least with the look of a man who has made progress and feels that the debate has been worth while and positive.

I listened with interest to what the hon. Member had to say about planning for telecommunications masts. I appreciate his concern for the landscape in his constituency, especially in the Stour valley and Dedham vale. As he rightly said, the vale provided a great deal of John Constable's inspiration. It is an area that I know well, have frequently visited and enjoy enormously. I fully support his comments about its considerable quality as part of the English landscape. Part of it is now designated an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, we have an established system for taking decisions on planning applications and appeals that come to the Secretary of State. These are based on locally prepared development plans, whether they be structure plans, local plans or unitary development plans. The public are involved in plan preparation. The local planning authority consults on draft plan proposals before it finally adopts them. Planning decisions are then taken on the basis of the plan unless, to use the words of the 1990 Act, material considerations indicate otherwise". The hon. Gentleman mentioned a particular planning inquiry associated with potential mast development in his constituency. As he will expect, at this point I should make it clear that it is not appropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of that or, indeed, any particular case. To do so might prejudice any future consideration of cases, including this case, that may come to the Secretary of State for decision. So the comments that I make will inevitably be of a general nature. Nevertheless, I hope that they will be helpful.

Planning policy guidance notes set out national policies on different aspects of planning. They provide the context for the local plan making that I have described. Local planning authorities must take their content into account in preparing their development plans. The guidance that they contain may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals. The hon. Gentleman made the point that it was only guidance, but I should stress that local authorities have to have regard to the guidance and that if they disregard it they can be challenged. Planning policy guidance note 8, which was last revised in December 1992, fulfils that function in relation to telecommunications. The general planning policy set out there is exactly as the hon. Gentleman stated in his speech. He accepts, and I endorse this, that this is an area of bipartisan agreement.

The policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems while meeting environmental objectives. These include well-established national policies for the protection of the countryside and urban areas. We want to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems. Accessible and cost-effective communications systems have a significant role to play in the development of the economy nationally, and indeed in regional and local regeneration. This must not be done, however, at the expense of the environment.

PPG8 spells out a commitment to the environment in the context of telecommunications development. It confirms the need when considering proposals for telecommunications development to take account of national policies for the protection of designated areas, both urban and rural. I refer here to the sort of environments found in conservation areas, national parks and, crucially in relation to the hon. Gentleman's concern about his constituency, areas of outstanding natural beauty. The national policy considerations that should be taken into account in relation to such areas are set out in full in other PPGs. The PPGs form a composite series of planning guidance. With regard to areas of outstanding natural beauty, PPG7 on the countryside states: In general, policies and development control decisions affecting AONBs should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. In all cases the environmental effects of new proposals will be a major consideration". I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the first assurance that he sought, that the undertaking given by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford)—I, too, had to check the constituency—is valid. Visibility from an area of outstanding natural beauty can be a material consideration in relation both to prior approval and to full planning applications. I will outline the distinction between those in a moment. The assurance that the hon. Gentleman sought is there. I confirm that the visibility of a mast from within an area of outstanding natural beauty is a factor that can and should be taken into account.

In planning for the roll-out of telecommunications networks, which manifest themselves particularly through the installation of masts and antennas, we are seeking to balance the different interests involved.

The hon. Gentleman will already know this, but it is important that I should put it in context. Installations by licensed telecommunications companies—or code system operators—are governed by the Telecommunications Act 1984, as well as by planning legislation. The need to protect designated areas when telecommunications development is proposed is recognised under both licensing and planning legislation. Licences granted to code system operators under the Telecommunications Act may impose their own conditions designed to help protect these areas. The control of development under the Town and Country Planning Act is managed in a similar way. The installation of any mast in an area of outstanding natural beauty or other designated area as specified in article 1(5) of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 requires a full planning application to be made to the local planning authority concerned.

There is a different approach outside areas of outstanding natural beauty and other designated areas. For these, the order allows code system operators to carry out various types of telecommunications development, including the erection of masts up to 15 m in height, without the need to apply for planning permission. Masts over 15 m require a full planning application. That does not mean that local planning authorities cannot stop masts under 15 m in unsuitable locations. An operator wishing to erect a mast up to 15 m high must apply to the local planning authority for its determination as to whether it wishes to approve within 28 days details of the mast's siting and appearance. The authority can refuse approval to one or both of those aspects, if it considers that that is justified. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if approval is refused. It is important that local planning authorities—I am not talking of the hon. Gentleman's authority but making a general point—make arrangements to enable them to process such applications effectively within the 28-day period.

PPG8 encourages local planning authorities to include in their development plans policies for the siting of telecommunications equipment such as masts. The plans should take account of the limitations imposed by the nature of the telecommunications network and technology, and of the need to protect the best and most sensitive environments. The number of plans that include such policies is increasing. Local authority plans generally apply national landscape conservation policies on a site-specific basis and often include policies for locally defined areas of landscape importance. That could include an area adjacent to an area of outstanding natural beauty as well as the AONB itself. Once they have been adopted, those policies provide the starting point for decisions on planning applications for masts and related telecommunications development by the local planning authority concerned, or on occasion, by the Secretary of State determining an appeal.

Other material factors to be considered alongside the plan include, as PPG8 points out, the significance of the proposed development as part of a national network. Material considerations can also include visual amenity and the potential for screening the proposed development. The visibility of a proposed mast from within and without a designated area such as an AONB can be a material consideration. The planning arrangements that are in place are intended to offer the basis for rational and balanced decision making on the siting of developments such as masts.

Overall, it is desirable to keep the number of telecommunications masts to a minimum, whether operative or redundant. In the latter case, both the telecommunications code and the operator's licence obligations require that apparatus must be removed when redundant. Provisions under the planning Act reinforce that approach. It is a condition of the General Permitted Development Order that redundant apparatus is removed. Local authorities may attach similar conditions to any planning permissions that they grant.

With proposals for new apparatus, licences that are issued to operators under the Telecommunications Act already include conditions requiring them to take all reasonable steps to investigate the possibility of mast sharing. PPG8 sets out the established policy on mast sharing. It attaches considerable importance to keeping to a minimum the numbers of radio and telecommunications masts, and of the sites for such installations. The sharing of masts will help achieve this, where practicable, as will the use of existing buildings to site new antennas. That is a policy that we particularly subscribe to and wish to develop. We already have what amounts to a "sequential test", which applies predominantly to out-of-town shopping, but a similar approach exists in relation to telecommunications masts.

Paragraph 27 of the PPG advises that local planning authorities may reasonably expect applicants for large masts to show evidence that they have explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building. mast or other structure". We are considering how we can take that further. On the practice front, I understand that the operators are piloting new approaches in the use of existing structures. In future, we may see more antennae attached to electricity pylons, for example. I appreciate that there are technical constraints that mean that mast sharing is not always a practical option. There are questions, too, of visual impact to be considered. Sometimes the installation of a further smaller mast may be preferable to additional antennae enlarging the silhouette of an existing mast. Those are just the sort of considerations about mast siting that can benefit from early discussions between operators and local planning authorities.

I hope that we can continue the progress that has already been made in matters of mast sharing and design. That must be in the interests of accommodating necessary telecommunications development, while at the same time minimising the impact of that form of development on the environment.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin

I am hoping that the Minister will reach this point before he sits down. In these cases, what is the mechanism for the Secretary of State using his powers to overturn an inspector's decision? Is that a decision that the Secretary of State can make entirely at his discretion, or is it bound by the planning guidance that has already been issued? Without wishing to invite the Minister to comment on this case specifically, there would be deep disappointment if the Secretary of State were not able to take that action. It would suggest that the planning guidance is defective, and I have always been assured that it would give enough discretion to turn down the case in any event.

Mr. Raynsford

As the hon. Gentleman must understand, I cannot comment on that particular case. I hear what he is saying, but I hope that I can give him the assurance that he seeks. Where a matter is subject to an inquiry or appeal, the Secretary of State has the ultimate decision as to whether to agree the application or matter subject to appeal. It will, therefore, be a matter for the Secretary of State to decide on, which is why I cannot comment at all on that case; it might prejudice the Secretary of State's discretion.

What I can say—and I think that it is important to say—is that we are extremely conscious of the concerns expressed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which the hon. Gentleman referred to. It has published a report on telecommunications development expressing concerns, which we have read and considered closely. We are particularly concerned to develop policies that provide the sort of safeguard that I know he seeks, while at the same time not damaging the economic imperative for allowing a continuing development of the telecommunications network.

I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's points about possible future technological developments. It seems unlikely that satellite technology will enable the replacement of antennae, but it is equally possible that there could be a move towards more and smaller antennae and that that, in turn, would give certain benefits. Difficult issues need to be addressed to achieve the right balance between the two, but we are considering the matter in a spirit of seeking to protect the countryside in a way that achieves the objectives that he has set out for his constituency. We are concerned to do that not just in respect of his constituency, but throughout the country, and I assure him that that is a high priority on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.