HL Deb 23 July 2001 vol 626 cc1803-10

10.45 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these draft regulations are intended to increase the fee payable to local planning authorities for applications for prior approval for telecommunications developments. Perhaps it will help if I summarise the current position and identify why we are recommending this increase.

The Government's general policy in telecommunications development is to encourage and facilitate the roll-out of a modern national telecommunications network while protecting the environment. We want to ensure that the public is able to enjoy the benefits that come from a greater choice of service providers and a broader range of services. The drive to develop the telecoms network with its attendant base stations, masts and antennae must, nevertheless, be balanced with the Government's commitment to the achievement of environmental objectives.

The Government attach great importance to keeping to a minimum the level of environmental intrusion caused by telecoms network development. The land use planning system provides the tool for striking the necessary balance. At present, the general planning arrangements mean that an application for planning permission is required for larger telecoms developments, such as masts over 15 metres high and for any mast development in key environmentally sensitive areas, such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and sites of special scientific interest.

Relatively minor development is permitted by the general permitted development order, commonly referred to as the GPDO. The GPDO gives a range of permitted development rights for telecommunications code systems operators who are licensed under the Telecommunications Act 1984. These allow operators to carry out specified development without the need to submit an application for planning permission to the local planning authority. The GPDO approach nevertheless incorporates environmental safeguards. The main safeguard is provided for what is known as the prior approval procedure. That gives the local planning authority an opportunity to consider the siting and appearance of telecoms masts. Where the local authority considers that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect upon local amenity, it is able to refuse approval.

With regard to the arrangement to distinguish between ground-based masts on the one hand, and those on buildings and other structures on the other, authorities have longer to consider the former: 42 as against 28 days.

In 1999, in response to growing public concern about the possible health implications of mobile phone masts, the Government asked their statutory advisor, the National Radiological Protection Board, to set up the independent expert group on mobile phones. The group, under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart, considered concerns about health effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters. It conducted a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of existing research and gathered a wide range of views. The group published its report on 11th May 2000. The Stewart group concluded that, The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures arc expected to be small fractions of the guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on their well-being in some cases The Stewart group suggested that public consultation under the prior approval arrangements was not working satisfactorily. It suggested that lack of public consultation is a major cause of grievance in people who suffer from loss of amenity when base stations are erected. It further suggested that many feel excluded and disempowered by the current planning arrangements and that the resultant frustration can also have a negative effect on people's health and well-being.

For those reasons, the group recommended that changes to the planning arrangements were necessary. Last summer my department consulted on possible changes to the planning rules in respect of telecommunications development in the light of the recommendations set out in the Stewart report. Following that consultation, on 16th March of this year the then Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction, Nick Raynsford, announced a series of important changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts. He announced that the Government would bring forward changes to the current Planning Rules and Guidance for Telecommunications Development Order in order to strengthen public consultation requirements on telecommunications proposals which require an application for prior approval so that they are exactly the same as those which require an application for planning permission.

They will increase the time for an authority to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days; underline that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college; extend the prior approval arrangements to cover antennae on roofs where the height of an antenna would exceed four metres; and increase fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.

In recognition of the extra demands which improved consultation will make on authorities, the draft fees regulation will increase the fee payable by developers for prior approval applications in respect of telecommunications development from £35 to £190. The five mobile phone operators to whom this fee increase will be most significant recommended in their response to our consultation last year that the fees should be increased by this amount in order to ensure that the local planning authorities had sufficient resources to deal with the additional consultation arrangements. The sum of £190 is the normal fee payable for an application for planning permission for a mast over 50 metres in height. Since local planning authorities will need to carry out the same public consultation for telecommunications development under the prior approval procedure as they would had they received an application for planning permission, they clearly require a comparable fee. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, the Stewart report, while commenting on the concerns as regards the health risks attached to telecoms development, also called for tougher planning powers for local authorities in dealing with such developments. I think that that amounted to something more than the wider consultation which will be enabled through the increase in fees in these regulations. While that in itself is welcome, it is but a small part of dealing with the issues which concern those living around such developments. The narrow scope of the regulations permits only a rather oblique reference to the underlying issues, but I think that it is fair to refer to one or two recent developments.

I understand that the Scottish Parliament—we have already heard praise for its procedures this evening — will vote on new procedures as regards telecoms developments after the Recess. Its transport and environment committee heard extensive evidence on the potential health risks. I understand that it concluded that guidance should be based on a precautionary approach, taking into account health and safety as well as other matters.

Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police Authority—I am happy to say that its relevant committee is chaired by one of my political colleagues—recently put on hold police radio masts until more information about the health implications becomes known.

I think that it is fair to say that the Government risk raising the expectations of those who are concerned about these developments and then publishing regulations which do not meet those expectations. In some ways that may be the worst of all worlds. I readily admit that many of us want the convenience of mobile phones and for them to operate effectively in every pocket of the country. But we do not like to think about the effects until the masts are erected in our own back yards, or perhaps the back yards of our schools. However, there is public concern about health as well as concerns about amenity; namely, the environmental effects of masts, which now crop up so often.

However extensive the consultation allowed as a result of these regulations, the local authority cannot take account of the health concerns that may often be expressed by objectors. The Minister spoke about communities and individuals feeling disempowered. That is how they will feel when they make representations to local planning authorities and find that their concerns about health are dismissed, as they will often have to be. I have too often seen in a previous life, as a member and chair of a local planning authority, how frustrated objectors are when they find that the rules—which are not rules written by the local planning authority, but national rules—do not allow their particular concerns to be taken into account.

I wonder how much consultation will increase as a result of the fees. What increased consultation will the increased fees support? It seems to me that £190 is barely even small change to applicants for this type of development. Some local planning authorities will do a great deal more than £190 will pay for; some do too little at the moment and may well continue to do so. The fee of £190 is woefully inadequate for the adverts that one would wish to see, the direct contact with people who may be affected, the holding of public meetings and the facilitating of the responses of objectors. I put that last matter very high on my personal list.

From these Benches we shall not obstruct the passage of these regulations. Increasing the fees will be helpful in so far as it goes, but, as a response to the public concern about the issue, this is rather a poor thing.

The Earl of Northesk

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. Let me say at once that we on these Benches do not quibble with the Government's intention. As the noble and learned Lord has explained, two competing forces are at work here: the Government's overall environmental objective, and their general policy of support for a state-of-the-art telecommunications network, with all its attendant IT and 3G potential. Moreover, as the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained, striking the balance between these two forces has the added complication imposed by the Stewart report—that is, the possible health implications attendant upon mobile telephony.

For my part, I make no judgment as to whether these regulations strike the right balance. I hope that the Minister will be pleased to hear that, tempting though it is, I do not intend to launch into a lengthy exposition about IT and 3G. None the less, we on these Benches do have a few areas of concern.

What lies to the heart of this issue is the sense of powerlessness that people feel under the existing regime. This was a particular theme of the Stewart report. Indeed, it was freely acknowledged by the noble and learned Lord today in his observation that, many feel excluded and disempowered by the planning arrangements". That was buttressed by the noble and learned Lord's assertion that a major part of the Government's aim is, to increase fees to enable authorities to carry out"— I emphasise the phrase used by the noble and learned Lord's colleague in another place— full public consultation". We on these Benches do not dissent from that, but, as I say, it provokes a few questions. First, what do the Government actually mean by "full public consultation"? Flowing from that, the noble and learned Lord will be well aware that from local authority to local authority there is currently a significant variation as to its form and extent, particularly in the context of the kind of planning applications we are discussing today. Therefore, do the Government have any plans to ensure consistency of approach—that is, have they issued, or do they intend to issue, guidance or some kind of direction to local authorities?

The Minister will also be aware that, on the back of the Stewart report, there are significant health issues that need to be borne in mind. Yet these are not a legitimate planning consideration. They cannot inform the determination of the application. How, therefore—here I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—can someone for whom these are of particular concern begin to hope that he or she has been "fully" consulted when the process is obliged to ignore his or her locus? In other words, is it not the case that the very concept of "full" consultation is in reality undeliverable?

There is a particular reason why these questions are important. As the Minister will know, the regulatory impact assessment's estimate that the regulations will generate additional revenue of £465,000 a year was a particular area of debate in another place. I cannot help feeling that it provoked rather more heat than light. Given that a requirement for "full" consultation is an onerous, and in some ways new, burden to impose on local authorities, what should matter is whether the increase in planning fees from £35 to £190—again I find myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—is sufficient to cover the cost. In particular, is the Minister satisfied that local planning departments will not be "out of pocket" in complying with the Government's call for full consultation? I hasten to add that I find it hard to accept that parity of fees within the planning system satisfactorily addresses the point. As I say, the concept of "full" consultation, depending of course on what the Government mean by it, can be seen as an innovation. Perhaps more importantly in this context, what research have the Government done to ascertain whether the fee level proposed is appropriate to the levels of consultation that they are seeking?

I conclude with this thought. Local authorities could be forgiven for supposing that, if I can put it this way, the Government seem to be willing only part of the means and none of the ends to implement their policy. Although I have no intention of asking the noble Lord to pre-empt or pre judge it, it may be that the Ove Arup report will shortly give us— and local authorities—a better insight into this issue. That is for another, perhaps not too distant day. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister's reply, in the full expectation that, with his customary wit and charm, he will allay these concerns.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl who have contributed to the debate. I believe that they are both unfair in their approach. What Sir William Stewart, with respect to him, was saying was that at present there is not a medical case to justify not building masts. But there is a concern about the lack of consultation that people feel before a mast is built in the area in which they live. He said that it had an adverse effect on people's sense of well-being and sense of health if they were not properly consulted.

The recommendation in the Stewart report was that the full planning consultation process should apply. What we have done instead is to say that the prior approval process rather than the full planning process should apply. The consultation required for the prior approval process is identical to the full planning process. So in terms of the precise requirement that Sir William Stewart suggested in his report, we have met that. Scotland has not done that because it has no prior approval process.

We have met the requirements of Sir William Stewart. There is only one material difference between prior approval and planning; namely, in the prior approval process, if the local authority has not approved the application within eight weeks it is deemed to have been approved. If the local authority has any doubts about the position and is not minded to approve an application, it can simply refuse it. We hope that what will happen is that the matter will be dealt with in a moderately fast way, always remembering that the full planning consultation process has to be gone through. That approach seems to us to strike the right balance. It meets the requirement of Sir William Stewart that there should be full consultation because it goes just as far as planning. But at the same time it provides a motor for the process to be done in a way that allows the telecommunications industry to roll out a mast at a reasonable speed. That strikes us as a reasonable balance. It shows that the Government have accepted the recommended precautionary approach; and, what is more, it should be seen in the context of the fact that we are taking forward a range of precautionary actions, including ensuring that all mobile phone-based stations meet the international exposure guidelines. We are also auditing mobile phone-based stations and masts to assess emissions, focusing on schools. We are setting up a national database with details of base stations. We are also launching a new £7 million joint government-industry research programme, and we are publishing leaflets on mobile phone-based stations to give people the latest information and advice.

The question was raised as to whether £190 was enough. As I made clear, the local authority is required to go through a consultation process that is identical to that required in planning. So there will be no difference between the position here and that in Scotland in relation to consultation. That was the point upon which Sir William Stewart focused. As one would expect, the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, had the courtesy to say that he does not take a position on whether or not it is the right or the wrong balance. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that we should have gone for full planning. But if her concern was that of Sir William Stewart— namely, the consultation process—I can tell her that we have introduced a process that does precisely what the noble Baroness would have wished us to do in relation to consultation.

In the light of the answers that I have given, I very much hope that the regulations will commend themselves to the House.

The Earl of Northesk

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he care to elaborate on what form and character of consultation the Government have in mind, rather than using the woolly expression, according to the existing planning system".

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, as the noble Earl will know, the precise consultation in any planning application is a matter for the local authority to undertake in accordance with the law. It is for the local authority to decide what the precise amount of consultation should be.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I should just like to make the position from these Benches quite clear. I take all the points that the noble and learned Lord has made. However, I remain concerned that the very process that will be undertaken at a little less cost to council taxpayers and the public purse will, nevertheless, leave objectors in a position where they feel that their concerns are not answered because there is a problem with the planning process as a whole. In that sense, I entirely accept that there is no difference between this type and many other types of planning application.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I do not take the noble Baroness to be saying that there should not be masts; I take it that her concern is about planning as a whole. As the noble Baroness knows, the Government have embarked upon a review of the planning process in respect of which we hope to be able to issue a Green Paper in the course of the autumn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.