HC Deb 22 October 2002 vol 391 cc286-7W
Mr. Clifton-Brown

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Court of Appeal decisions in(a) R. v Brent London Borough Council and Others (b) R. v Oxfordshire County Council's Exclusion Panel and Another on planning guidance notes and what plans he has to withdraw paragraph 98 of PPG8 so that local planning authorities may be able to take into account health affects and concerns relating to telephone masts. [75213]

Mr. McNulty

Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 "General Policy and Principles" clearly states that in principle any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Whether a particular consideration falling within that broad class is material in any given case will depend on the circumstances.

The Courts have also held that the Government's statements of planning policy are material considerations which must be taken into account, where relevant, in decisions on planning applications. These statements cannot make irrelevant any matter which is a material consideration in a particular case. But, where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision-makers must have proper regard to them. If they elect not to follow relevant statements of the Government's planning policy, they must give clear and convincing reasons (E C Grandsen and Co Ltd v SSE and Gillingham BC 1985).

Current planning guidance on telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (revised) (PPG8). PPG8 states that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.

However, it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.

I have no plans to withdraw paragraph 98 from PPG8.