Planning Sanity Briefing
Telecommunication Base Stations

Planning Sanity believes that the time has passed when we can allow the erection of telecommunication masts without proper consideration by the planning authorities. At present the majority of permissions are granted in the form of Permitted Development Rights. This process which is effectively a fast track planning decision making process, is being widely abused, by overworked planning officers (not always deliberately on the part of officers, but pressure of work means they often take the easy route out - see Harrow Survey for local planning authorities views) and operators alike. Planning Sanity totally condemns this, especially when the health implications of these masts is still not fully known or understood, as well as many masts (despite the recommendation of Sir William Stewart) still being installed near to schools and other sensitive locations. Far too often we still hear of local planning officers advising that they cannot take health into account despite the clear indications from the courts that they have a legal obligation to take actual and perceived health concerns into account (albeit on a limited basis).

It should be fully understood here that telecommunication installations cover a wide range of installation types other than those formally looked upon as mobile phone masts, using several different processes some of which totally by-pass the local planning procedures, with no ability of the public who are forced to live with the consequences, having an opportunity for comment. It should also be understood that the UK has four separate planning regimes in as far as telecoms are concerned, that of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, albeit that England and Wales are very similar if not identical in nature and practice.

Planning Sanity is calling on members of the public, the media, local authorities, Councillors, MPs and MEPs to lobby for a change in the legislation to tighten up the law relating to 'Permitted Development' for telecommunication installations (In particular the number of loopholes that operators are using). A golden opportunity was lost with the introduction of the New PPG 8 in August 2001, which failed to bring in full planning controls. The few improvements brought about were offset by the numerous loopholes some introduced at that time) as well as not giving clarity to the question of health. We now need to keep up the pressure until we get justice, and a system that allows full participation by those that have to live with the effects of these developments, we are slowly winning that fight but need you all to contact your elected representatives to lobby for their support. MPs to change government policy, Councillors to pass motions of support for a change in policy and MEPs for a European Directive on mast safety.

Whilst it is accepted that more research is needed on the consequences of irradiation emitted from these installations, there is genuine concern within the wider community of the health risk from such installations. To allay that fear, and to help lessen the prospect of yet another BSE 'type' health risk being inflicted upon the public Planning Sanity are asking elected representatives and the public to lobby the Government to introduce legislation covering the following points:-

• Remove permitted development rights from all telecommunications development;
• All applications to be brought within the remit of the Town and Country Planning Act (full planning process);
• Government planning policy guidance should be revised to remove the bias in favour of the telecommunications industry and to include the provision on the need for a health statement on a case by case basis, using a similar process to that set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations;
• Greater powers for local planning authorities to determine inappropriate localities/sites;
• An obligation on the part of operators to move existing masts on sites close to sensitive developments such as schools and hospitals;
• To include information on the role-out proposals within the normal local plan process to allow public participation at all stages of the siting of installations;
• The implementation of a planning condition that operators should be required to erect signs warning of the potential danger from the masts. And to take all reasonable precautions to prevent harm to local inhabitants, domestic animals, wildlife, flora and fauna;
• A levy to be placed upon phone users to pay for Government backed research into health and other adverse effects of masts and mobile phones;
• The blocking of all loopholes that allow for the decisions on the siting of installations to bypass local planning procedures;
• A requirement that all installations by none system operators, such as Network Rail come within the same procedures as those for system operators, in order to give consistency to decisions;
• That all installations on church property to be determined by the civil planning authorities;
• That each local authority be required to take measures to monitor emissions within their areas and to publish the results in both a printed and electronic format;
• To re-establish confidence in the planning system a more robust enforcement procedure should be implemented, including policing of emission levels, and ensuring that where masts are unlawfully installed that they are not allowed to operate until enforcement procedures are concluded, or retrospective permission has been obtained (in other words withdrawal of the ability of operators to profit from their unlawful developments);
• Relaxation of the rules to allow local planning authorities to revoke permissions and/or discontinue the use of sites for telecommunications purposes, in order that local planning authorities are not required to pay compensation to the operators as they are at the moment.

When dealing with health issues, even when the Local Planning Authority (LPA) tell you otherwise you should forget trying to prove an adverse health effect and instead, simply state that you have an abject fear that the base station will potentially affect your health and that of your family, and that this concern is having an adverse effect upon the amenity of the area, making the locality a less desirable place to live. This is a material planning consideration, and must be taken into account. The local planning authority have the final say on how much weight to afford to the fear held by the local community, that is they CAN reject an application on health grounds, but as the courts have said only in the rarest of cases, if they deem sufficient weight should be afforded to the reduction in the amenity of the area. See Jodie Phillips v First Secretary of State ( also see the Planning Sanity Briefing on Court cases).

Para 41 of the Jodie Phillips case:-

• "....... It seems to me to follow, again as a matter of principle, that if there were two alternative sites each of which was otherwise acceptable in environmental terms, it would be open to a decision-maker to refuse approval for one of those sites if the location of a mast on that site would give rise to substantially greater public concerns than its location on the alternative site. To take an example close to the facts of the present case: if one of the sites were close to a nursery school and residential properties, whereas the other was in an industrial estate some distance away from the school and residential properties, the greater public concern about the former might tip the balance against the grant of approval for it. I am not saying that that is how a particular application would be decided or ought to be decided, but only that it would be lawful for a decision-maker to approach the matter in that way".

If you want to become involved in the Campaign to Stop the 'Trefid' like spread of these towers then lobby your LPA and elected representative's to adopt the above as their policy, and to ensure they take the matter up at national level to bring about a change in the law relating to Permitted Development Rights and Telecommunication Masks. Also become a member of Planning Sanity, get active and together we can make a real difference. There is also much to be said for the 'precautionary principle', which gives way to the argument that where a development is likely to have a harmful effect then planning permission should be refused.

• "1) Community policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives:
  • preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment;
  • protecting human health;
  • prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources;
  • Promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems.
  
  2) Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based on the precautionary principles that preventative action should be taken, that environmental damage should be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay... (p39)"

There are many reports, briefings and letters on our WEB site which sets out the health issue, and other specialist topic areas in detail, please refer to these, and then phone our helpline for specific advise. Good luck with your campaign.