Mobile Phone Masts Scrutiny Review

Report of Findings and Recommendations

June 2006

1. Background to the Review 1.1 The Scrutiny Committee of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council has

undertaken a review of Mobile Phone Masts in the Borough. The review was scoped at a meeting of Committee in November 2004 with two review meetings being held in January and March 2006. Final conclusions and recommendations from the review were endorsed by Scrutiny Committee and by the Council’s Cabinet in June 2006.

1.2 Scoping of the review highlighted the following issues that needed to be

addressed:

• To gain an understanding of network operators’ needs and the scope for these to work in partnership eg via mast sharing

• To assess operators’ plans for the expansion of mobile phone

masts over the next 12-18 months • To explore the current arrangements for the consideration of

proposals for new masts through the Planning Acts, the extent to which views of local communities can be taken into account and how readily Local Planning Authorities can assess the operational needs and balance these against local environmental concerns.

• To assess current research into the health risks associated with

mobile phone masts and the extent to which such matters can be considered as part of the planning process with reference to recent case examples.

• To investigate best practice in the siting of new mobile phone

masts and the extent to which network operators might be encouraged to take up such guidance on a voluntary basis.

1.3 The Committee received evidence from representatives of the Mobile

Phone Operators Association, Vodafone, T-Mobile, Orange, O2 and 3. Evidence on health issues related to mobile phone masts was provided by Dr Chandrakumar of the Kent Health Protection Unit. Additional information on planning matters was provided by the Director of Planning and Transportation and by Kent County Council on their policies regarding the siting of mobile phone masts on County Council land.

1.4 This report sets out the conclusions of the Scrutiny Committee on the

issues addressed by the review and makes a number of recommendations based on its findings.

2 Review Conclusions Key Issue 1 – Operators’ Needs 2.1 The Committee was made aware of the ever-growing demand for

mobile phone technology and the implications this had for the provision of additional mobile phone masts. More base stations are required to cater for a massive increase in consumer demand which is likely to arise from increased usage of text services rather than voice-based services. 2g networks were now nearing saturation point, but with the introduction of 3g technology and the roll out of new mobile services, extra mast provision will be required. 3g technology is likely to result in increased consumer demand which will require more extensive coverage and, as the cell size of 3g is smaller than 2g, extra mast provision will be required. One of the benefits of 3g technology is that it can be supported by more innovative mast designs. 2g is limited to larger, potentially more visually intrusive lattice antenna design. Siting and design issues are considered below.

2.2 Operators are aware of the public concerns regarding the siting of new

mobile phone masts and are seeking to address this in a number of ways. An annual roll-out plan is now prepared covering all major operators to enable informal consultation with local authorities to be undertaken prior to any formal process of notification or application. This enables local authorities to assess proposals for new masts as a whole and make comments and suggestions at an early stage to influence decisions of the operators. Mobile phone operators also seek to grade potential sites for environmental/community impact to inform the level of pre-application consultation that needs to be undertaken.

2.3 The Committee expressed concerns about the potential proliferation of

masts to cater for 3g technology. It was felt that more research was needed to investigate how cell coverage areas might be expanded to reduce the number of masts required. However, it was explained that this is not achievable due to technical and scientific constraints. Smaller cell zones are being developed, however, in more restricted urban spaces and within buildings where there is scope for smaller antenna that can be better hidden to reduce visual intrusion. It was explained that the use of lower frequency wave bands is under the control of the Government. Some lower frequency spectrums are likely to be released when analogue television is decommissioned but it was reported that there will be significant competition for this within the industry.

Key Issue 2 – Site and Mast Sharing 2.4 The review explored the potential for operators to reduce the number of

masts by sharing antenna and to reduce visual impact by grouping masts on the same site. The perception was that operators often used

technical reasons to discount such options at an early stage in the process but these reasons were not fully explained or justified. The Committee felt that commercial issues were more likely to prevent opportunities for different operators to share sites and masts. The Operators Association reported that at present, around two thirds of base station sites in the UK are either shared or placed on existing buildings or structures.

2.5 The operators reported that an agreement had been put in place

between major operators to facilitate mast and site sharing but in practice, this was often difficult to achieve. Site sharing can be limited as different types of antenna sometimes need be kept separate. With regard to mast sharing, the need for separation can mean that mast structures need to be made higher and there can be landowner objections to this. It was reported that sharing of facilities was usually more easy to achieve in urban areas than at greenfield and rural locations. The more innovative design of masts for 3g technology also limited mast sharing opportunities. It was generally easier to site and mast share with 2g technology.

2.6 The Committee also explored the potential for siting mobile phone

masts on other types of structures, for example, electricity pylons and British Rail facilities. These options also had constraints, however. British Rail was setting up its own network and was reported to be reluctant to share facilities with other operators. The use of electricity pylons was restricted to the larger 4000 watt pylons not the smaller 2750 watt pylon but operational and health and safety issues were sometimes difficult to resolve. The operators reported that utilities companies can sometimes be too slow to deal with and this meant that other solutions had to be found to prevent delays in the roll-out programme occurring.

2.7 KCC’s embargo on the siting of masts on their land outside the

highway can be a limit on sharing where there is an existing base station on their land already. In view of the advantages of site and mast sharing over the construction of masts on new sites, it was felt that KCC should review its policy to allow for some flexibility. The operators reported that some public authorities acted more positively over the siting of masts on land in their ownership and were prepared to re-invest the income received from the operators back into the local community where the mast was sited.

2.8 Overall, it was agreed that there needed to be greater clarity over site

and mast sharing options when individual proposals for new masts came forward. The operators needed to explain how options for mast and site sharing had been investigated and the reasons why such options had been rejected. There was a need to reassure the public that the selection of a new, potentially intrusive, site was properly justified after proper consideration had been given to sharing options in the locality.

Key Issue 3 - Health Issues 2.9 Health fears related to mobile phone masts are perhaps the most

common concern expressed by the public when faced with proposals for a mast in their localities. The review heard that the Stewart Report, published in 2000, remained the key piece of research in relation to health issues. This study had concluded that on the basis of current evidence, there was no risk to health from mobile phone technology. This technology converts sound to radio waves for transmission which is then converted back to sound by receivers. Highest concentrations of radio waves are actually not found immediately adjacent to base stations. The only effect of radio waves on body tissue is a slight heating effect. In this regard, there will always be higher concentrations of waves when mobile phones are held to the ear than from mobile phone masts.

2.10 The Stewart Report found no biological evidence of any link between

radio waves and an increased incidence of cancer. Radio emissions from mobile phone base stations are generally thousands of times below the guideline levels adopted across Europe (ICNIRP). By adopting these guidelines, the Government has adopted a precautionary approach to the potential impact of mobile phone technology. On this basis, PPG8 makes it clear that where base stations meet ICNIRP guidelines, it is not necessary for local planning authorities to consider health issues any further in the processing of mast applications.

2.11 Despite the clear evidence from the Stewart Report, however, the

review heard that many local people remained fearful of the health impacts of mobile phone masts, particularly regarding unknown potential longer term harmful effects which are difficult to predict. Some of this concern came from misinformation about the subject and some from a lack of clear, readily available public information from Government.

2.12 Whilst there will always remain some uncertainty about the longer term

health risks, it was felt that many residents needed better and clearer information about health studies, including the Stewart Report, when they were commenting on proposals for new mobile phone masts. It was also reported that an update of the Stewart Report had been published in 2005 (with the same conclusions) but this had been given little publicity by the Government. Some 25 other studies had also been published since 2000 which supported the conclusions of the original Stewart Report. Greater reassurance to the public about health risks could be achieved if the Government published an up to date statement on the issue and this included a list of reliable data sources

reflecting the most up to date research that people could access for themselves.

2.13 Greater public understanding and acceptance of the current

Government position on health and mobile phone technologies could also be achieved locally by the publication of an information leaflet by the Borough Council. The Director of Planning and Transportation has offered to undertake this task.

Key Issue 4 - Visual Impact 2.14 Members of the review group expressed concern about the visual

intrusion of some phone masts both in urban and rural locations around the Borough.

2.15 The review heard from industry representatives that there was

considerable scope for local planning authorities to influence the siting and design of new masts and to press for higher environmental standards generally. Phone companies were often open to proposals to consider more innovative forms of design, particularly in sensitive locations, provided extra costs could be justified. The new 3g technology has enabled a much wider range of more innovative mast designs to be developed including masts incorporated into street furniture, flag poles, on buildings, and mock trees. Generally, it was easier to achieve better visual integration in urban areas than it was in more open countryside where there was less natural screening available. A key constraint in the rural areas was the need for masts to be elevated above the tree line which resulted in them also being more visible to the public.

2.16 The review group felt that more should be done to encourage operators

to site masts more sensitively within the landscape, to use existing screening where available, including placing masts in front of existing tree lines in stead of in the centre of open land, and to camouflage masts with more innovative design solutions and neutral colours particularly where natural screening was not available. It was noted that in general terms these were objectives that were already pursued by the Director of Planning and Transportation and his staff in dealing with individual proposals. However, this review process has helped achieve a wider understanding of the choices that were available in a way that would not have been readily achieved in the context of consideration of individual proposals. Where major sites were being developed, there was also scope under PPG8 to ensure phone mast provision was made as an integral part of that development. Additional screening was often needed to hide the equipment provided at ground level as this could be equally intrusive as the antenna themselves. It was suggested also that siting of masts should be avoided in heavily populated areas and on recreational land such as country parks and playing fields.

2.17 Attention was also drawn to the impact of mobile phone equipment

cabinets at ground level. On occasion, these had created barriers, particularly for disabled people. In another case, the siting of the box had created security problems for a neighbouring site by inadvertently acting as a means to scale a nearby boundary wall.

2.18 The issue of upgrading existing mobile phone sites to provide more

innovative and sensitive designs was also raised. It was reported that such upgrades might be possible to achieve but, in some cases, this was limited by the nature of the lease agreement with the landowner.

2.19 Hampshire County Council had produced guidance on siting and

design issues and this was commended to the review by the Operators Association. A copy of this guidance is attached as Appendix A to this report. Under revised planning regulations, formal stand-alone Supplementary Planning Guidance no longer exists. SPG has now been replaced by Supplementary Planning Documents which are entirely different and their preparation needs to be signalled via the Local Development Scheme and be formally adopted as part of the Local Development Framework. The proposed ‘informal’ publication which is suggested at 2.13 above could, however, include informal guidance setting out the Borough Council’s expectations and approach to dealing with mast proposals. This would obviate the need for a lengthy process required to produce a more formal SPD on mobile phone masts.

Key Issue 5 – Planning Procedures 2.20 Members of the review group drew attention to a number of issues

relating to the planning processes to be followed in dealing with prior notifications and applications about phone masts.

2.21 Local members drew attention to the difficulties in engaging in pre-

application discussions with operators given issues of probity when such applications come before committee. To overcome these problems, planning officers should take the lead in such negotiations reflecting the issues needing to be addressed in each individual case, and taking account of points raised by Members and others, as appropriate. Residents (and Parish Councils) should be encouraged to have a direct dialogue with the operators and planning officers rather than speaking to local Members about the issues involved. This approach (and the reasons for it) needed to be emphasised in any public leaflet produced.

2.22 An issue with the planning procedures was identified whereby

proposals for a pole and equipment box were originally refused, the pole was then permitted on its own and the equipment box provided later under permitted development rights, thus bypassing the original refusal.

2.23 It was considered that there should be greater control over the location

of equipment cabinets and that Government should be invited to review and amend permitted development rights for such development.

2.24 In addition, greater powers for the County Council (as highway

authority) to control the location of equipment boxes and other equipment on highway land should be sought from Government. Amenity considerations should also be taken into account in addition to highway safety.

2.25 Members of the review group queried the extent to which operating

companies took full account of local topography and landscape when selecting new sites for mobile phone masts. It was felt, at times, that final site selection seemed to be driven more by the presence of a willing landowner than by environmental and visual factors. The review group was assured that such factors were taken into account by operators and a wide selection of sites was considered. A key constraint was, however, the logistics and costs associated with the need to provide an electricity connection to the chosen site. This sometimes meant that more isolated and better screened sites could not be used. It was suggested that if the Council was aware that operators appeared not to be giving proper consideration to a range of alternative sites, then this matter could be raised via liaison with the Operators Association.

Recommendations 2.26 The Borough Council should continue to work closely with the MOA

and individual operators over the planning of new masts, their location, siting and design.

2.27 In appropriate cases, the Borough Council seeks the agreement of

mobile phone operators to consider the use of more environmentally acceptable mast designs, and appropriate screening and camouflaging of masts and associated equipment to achieve minimum adverse visual impact.

2.28 The Borough Council should continue to scrutinise mobile phone mast

proposals to ensure that the options of mast and site sharing have been fully considered by the operator in each case. A commitment should be sought from the MOA and individual operators to provide greater clarity with regard to the options for site and mast sharing and to provide reasons why these have been rejected if entirely new sites are proposed.

2.29 The County Council be requested to relax its moratorium on the siting

of masts on their own land (outside of the public highway) to allow for site and mast sharing in appropriate circumstances. However, the

Borough Council should express its support for highway authorities to be given more substantive powers to control the siting and design of mobile phone equipment on highway land.

2.30 The Government be invited to publish and promote all up-to-date

studies on the health risks associated with mobile phone technologies, including the recent update of the Stewart Report, and to make this information widely available to the public.

2.31 That the Cabinet welcomes the offer from the Director of Planning and

Transportation to prepare and publish an information leaflet outlining procedures involved in mobile phone mast applications, including relevant information on health and planning issues and best practice in siting and designing. The leaflet should be circulated widely including via the Council’s website.

2.32 The Government be invited to reconsider permitted development rights

associated with the provision of ground level equipment associated with mobile phone infrastructure to enable local planning authorities to have better control over the siting and design of such development.

. 2.33 Applications for mobile phone masts in the Borough be kept under

review with regard to the information provided by operators about site and mast sharing opportunities and the extent to which alternative sites have been considered. Any issues of concern should be taken up with the Mobile Operators Association.

Appendix A – Hampshire County Council – Supplementary Planning Guidance