§ The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
I am seeking to place a renewed emphasis on the importance of both the local planning authority and network operators participating in the annual roll-out discussion process described in the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development. The importance of this was recognised in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised) Telecommunications (PPG8) and the code of practice and has recently been emphasised by the All-Party Group on Mobile Communications in its report into planning procedures. The report recognised the benefits of local planning authorities and operators working with the local community to review annual roll-out plans and to develop local strategies for telecommunication developments.
The Government believe that information sharing and negotiation at this early stage could greatly reduce concern and conflict when specific applications are submitted in line with the agreed local plan or strategy. Therefore, it is desirable that, in their local development frameworks, local planning authorities consider how 61WS to manage the developments needed to meet the growing demand for communication services. Where appropriate, authorities may need to consider developing a suitable policy basis for communication developments in their local development documents. Such policies must of course be in accordance with the national policy as set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised) Telecommunications.
I am also reiterating the importance of effective pre-application discussions, especially in the absence of an agreed communications plan or strategy. It is of course open to local planning authorities to charge for such discussions under Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003, if they consider it necessary or appropriate.
The code of best practice sets out the traffic light model, which is designed to help network operators and their representatives to identify issues that might arise should a site be selected for a telecommunication development and to help the preparation of consultation strategies to address such issues. It is important that the rating under the traffic light model is discussed with the local planning authority. In red and amber rated areas, the discussion should include consideration of the optional elements of the consultation strategy that will be undertaken by the applicant. In accordance with the code of best practice, it is reasonable for the local planning authority to expect that evidence of the consultation undertaken should be provided as part of the supplementary information sent with an application.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has commissioned a study by the University of Reading and Arup to assess the impact that the code of best practice has had since its introduction and how local authorities have implemented the code and how the public perceives its operation. The mobile network operators have also commissioned the second independent review of their "Ten Commitments", which will demonstrate in a quantitative way how their operations and procedures align with the requirements of the code. That will provide the Government with evidence on whether the code has been effective and whether there are any areas of weakness that need to be addressed. Informed by that evidence, the Government will consider whether changes to the code are appropriate.
Finally, in respect of the Court of Appeal case, First Secretary of State v T Mobile and others, on 12 November the court dismissed an appeal by the First Secretary of State against the decision of Sir Richard Tucker in relation to an application by T Mobile for a shared mast in Harrogate. In essence, the issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the judge in the High Court had dealt correctly with the extent to which public fears about the health risks arising from masts was material, when the development in question had the benefit of an ICNIRP certificate. Sir Richard had held that the inspector had misconstrued PPG8 when dealing with the issue in his decision letter.
62WSThe Court of Appeal gave consideration to the policy guidance in PPG8. Taking into account that advice, the court found the First Secretary of State's policy to mean that in cases where an ICNIRP certificate existed, only in exceptional circumstances would it be legitimate for a local planning authority to take public fears about health risks into account. It agreed with Sir Richard that the inspector had misconstrued that advice and that his decision was therefore flawed. We will carefully review the transcript of the judgment of Lord Justices Pill, Mummery and Laws before deciding what action may need to be taken in the light of that judgment.
Officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will write to all local planning authorities and licensed communications code system operators drawing their attention to this Statement.