§ Lord BULLOCKMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will institute an inquiry into the decision to erect a 120 ft. lattice mast in the middle of Leafield, Oxfordshire, against the advice received from the district and local councils and in face of strong opposition from the local population.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, the Government see no reason to hold an inquiry in this case.
§ Lord BULLOCKMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. If the Government are unwilling to hold an inquiry, can she confirm that the Thames Valley police authority—one of the emergency services for which the mast was erected—regard its location in Leafield as unsatisfactory, have no intention of using it and are looking for an alternative site which can serve the other emergency services as well, and so allow the Leafield mast to be removed?
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, my information is that the Leafield mast was for the fire and ambulance services, and not for the police.
§ The Earl of KINNOULLMy Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm whether this comes within the realms of planning? If it does, if there were a substantial objection, as the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, has suggested, will she say whether the Minister would normally call it in for that reason?
§ Baroness STEDMANNo, my Lords; there were objections, but I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate that it is for the county council to decide whether those objections shall be met, because it is a planning decision. But I understand that, in reaching their decision, they were guided by advice from the Home Office that a guy line mast was not suitable, because it would not be fitted with safety devices such as ladders, fall arrest systems and rest platforms. In cases where these cannot be fitted, a structure has to be capable of being lowered to the ground in order to gain access to the aerials, and this was not possible at Leafield.