Archived decisions

Hampshire County Council

Policy Review Committee, Policy & Resources Item

Executive Member, Policy & Resources

6 June & 13 June 2002

Policy for Applications to Erect Telecommunication Masts on

County Council Land and Property

Report by the Director of Property, Business and Regulatory Services

Not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule 12A

of the Local Government Act 1972

1

Summary

1.1

This report concerns the County Council`s policy on the use of its land or buildings for the provision of telecommunications base stations. It describes the results of monitoring emissions from existing base stations on or in the vicinity of County Council schools; outlines representations made to Central Government and guidance agreed with local planning authorities; and recommends no material changes to the existing moratorium.

2

Background

2.1

In the light of concerns over the possible harmful long-term effects of electromagnetic field emissions (EMF) from telecommunications masts, the County Council has adopted a precautionary approach and since 1998 has operated a moratorium on the grant of any further leases. At its meeting on 1 March 2001 in response to particular proposals to erect a telecommunications mast in close proximity to Western Primary School, Winchester, the Asset Management Sub-Committee called for:

i)

Representations to be made to Central Government in support of changes to planning procedures and guidance associated with telecommunications development;

ii)

The preparation of a policy for the siting of base stations across the County in consultation with Hampshire's Local Planning Authorities and the telecommunications industry;

iii)

Completion of a 12 month programme of monitoring emissions from base stations on County Council land; and

iv)

The existing moratorium on the siting of base stations on County Council property to be maintained.

3

Actions - Planning Representations and Guidance

3.1

With regard to 2.1(i) above, representations were made to Government following which the revised Planning Policy Guidance Note - Telecommunications (PPG8) and important changes to the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO), were introduced in August 2001.

3.2

In relation to 2.1(ii) above, the County Planning Officer has prepared a guidance note "Mobile Telecommunications Guide, 2002" (see Appendix 1) that has been approved, in principle, by the Executive Member (Environment). The Note clarifies the obligations of the parties involved in the development process associated with the provision of telecommunications base stations.

3.3

Although not all mast development has become the subject of full planning control, the adopted changes have clarified procedures and expectations of the local planning authorities and the five Code Operators (listed in Appendix 2) in handling and determining applications. Such improvements have been achieved against a background of contractual obligations imposed by Central Government on the Code Operators to meet demand for expansion of communications networks, and the concerns and rights of those communities affected by such proposals.

3.4

The guidance that has been issued makes it clear that the planning process is not the mechanism for settling health issues associated with the development of base stations, provided that Code Operators demonstrate that emissions from antennae will be within standards set by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

3.5

Unfortunately, it is not possible for a `safe' distance definition of "close proximity to schools" to be quantified in relation to the siting of base stations. This uncertainty has led to several County Council controlled schools raising planning objections to some mast proposals as well as contributing to significant public opposition from residents in the vicinity of schemes (see Appendix 3).

4

Actions - Code Operators

4.1

A fundamental criticism of the Code Operators in their handling of cases prior to August 2001 was their apparent lack of sensitivity to community concerns associated with the development of base stations. Such lack of consideration, principally involving no consultation with nearby residents or schools, particularly when their proposals were of a height, form and location to qualify as Permitted Development, ie not requiring a conventional planning consent, was instrumental in provoking opposition to their proposals by well organised local and national lobby groups.

4.2

In consultation with the Federation of the Electronics Industry (FEI), the Code Operators have developed, and adopted across the board, their Ten Commitments document, the details of which are included in the County Planning Officer's Guidance Note in Appendix 1. Importantly, this has resulted in improved pre-application consultation with schools and local residents when potential base station sites are identified close to educational establishments.

4.3

Further changes to these procedures are anticipated with a Local Government Association/DTLR/FEI sponsored Code of Practice due to be released later this year.

4.4

The Code Operators and Central Government will stress that there is public demand for telecommunications networks to be improved and that this will require significant expansion in the required infrastructure to be put in place. As a consequence, some individuals or groups of people will be affected by the provision of telecommunication base stations in their vicinity.

5

Health Risks and Monitoring of EMF Emissions

5.1

Significant uncertainty remains as to the long-term health risks associated with EMF emissions from telecommunications base stations. Contradictory advice from various sources and the lack of historical monitoring evidence has contributed to the increase in opposition to many Code Operator schemes in Hampshire. This position is expected to be aggravated as Code Operators seek to achieve more consistent signal coverage by providing more antennae in urban locations in close proximity to surrounding development, including schools and residential properties.

5.2

Government advice maintains that there is little risk to health where EMF emissions are below the ICNIRP standards (between 0_z to 300 GHZ), although such advice appears to relate only to thermal, and not biological, effects. It is expected that since last August, all existing and new base stations will meet these standards. The guidance available does, however, continue to support adoption of the "precautionary approach" as recommended by the Stewart Report, issued in 2000, particularly in relation to potentially harmful effects on vulnerable sections of the community, including pupils attending schools. Given that "...the possibility of harm cannot be ruled out with confidence ...." (as referred to in PPG 8), the Government has launched a substantial independent research programme to investigate the potential harmful effects of base station EMFs. It is probable, however, that collation of reliable data will take many years to achieve.

5.3

Meanwhile, in accordance with 2.1(iii) above, the Head of Regulatory Services has continued to monitor emissions from existing masts on or close to County Council owned property, especially the 6 schools identified in Appendix 4. All evidence collated confirms that the measured levels of radiation are only a small fraction of those in the ICNIRP guidelines. Such findings are also supported by independent monitoring results from over 185 schools nationwide conducted by the Radiocommunications Agency.

5.4

Notwithstanding such evidence, however, there is increasing concern within various communities that uncertainty regarding direct effects of emissions is contributing to psychologically related illnesses. It is with this factor in mind that a number of local planning authorities appear to have regarded perceived health risks as a material consideration when refusing base station applications.

6

Implications for Hampshire County Council as Landowner

6.1

Currently, the County Council has a blanket moratorium on the use of Council property to facilitate development of base stations, as do many other local authorities. Reaffirmation of this policy in March 2001 was based on an expectation that a precautionary approach should continue to be followed, especially insofar as it might protect vulnerable groups within the community, eg school pupils. A lack of reliable scientific evidence as to the potential long-term risks to health from EMF emissions was a significant factor in reaching that conclusion.

6.2

In contrast, Government Guidance in PPG8 indicates that local authorities are expected to make their land available in appropriate circumstances, particularly if this might secure the most environmentally-acceptable siting of a base station. This view has also been expressed by some local planning authorities in relation to their responsibilities for determining applications.

6.3

As a landowner the County Council would benefit from the rental arising from any leases for the installation of base stations; the rental levels potentially available vary with the location, number of antennae and alternative sites available.

6.4

Nevertheless, in light of the Government`s acceptance of the advice contained in the Stewart Report that ".... The possibility of harm cannot be ruled out with confidence...." and advice from the Head of Regulatory Services that there remains a lack of evidence as to the long term health effects of EMF emissions, it is recommended that the current precautionary approach should be maintained.

Recommendation

That the Executive Member for Policy and Resources be advised that:

1.

2.

3.

4.

The County Council, as a major public landowner continues its moratorium and precautionary approach on the siting of telecommunication base stations on its land and buildings.

In exceptional circumstances, masts be considered for County Council land where an overall community benefit can be demonstrated, health concerns allayed and environmental improvements achieved, rather than use other available sites.

Approval be sought from the Executive Member for Policy and Resources on those exceptional circumstances, following consultation with the community involved.

The above advice be reviewed in light of further national guidance.

Appendix 1

-

Mobile Telecommunications Guide, 2002

Appendix 2

-

List of Code Operators:

- BT Cellnet (now known as O²)

- Hutchison 3G UK

- One 2 One

- Orange

- Vodaphone

Appendix 3

-

(a)

Byron Avenue, Winchester - proximity to Western Primary School - refused by Winchester City Council on reconsideration of application after Judicial Review. Possibility of appeal by Code Operator.

-

(b)

Kynegils Road and Lanham Lane, Winchester - significant public opposition has resulted in Code Operator identifying alternative sites.

-

(c)

Selwyn Drive/School Lane, Yateley - proximity to Yateley Community School - refused by Hart District Council but consent granted to Code Operator on appeal to Secretary of State (DTLR).

-

(d)

Sarum Road, Winchester - proximity to Kings School - refused by Winchester City Council but Code Operator appeal to Secretary of State - awaiting decision.

-

(e)

Telephone Exchange, Romsey Road, Lyndhurst - proximity to St Michael and All Angels Infant School - refused by New Forest District Council - possibility of appeal by Code Operator.

-

(f)

SEB Depot, Charlton Road, Andover - proximity to Harrow Way School - advice given to school on representations to be made to Test Valley Borough Council objecting to proposal.

School

Recorded EMF Emissions (as fraction of maximum ICNIRP level)

· Richard Aldworth School, Basingstoke

1/

· Henry Cort School, Fareham

1/

· Cove Secondary School, Farnborough

1/

· Crestwood School, Eastleigh

1/

· Meadowlands Infant School, Lovedean

1/

· The Vyne School, Basingstoke

1/

· Highest levels recorded in first year monitoring by independent Radiocommunications Agency (to December 2001)

1/279