AMENDED REPORT – MEMBERS’ ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO PARAGRAPH 3.4
BOROUGH OF POOLE
REPORT TO RESOURCES OVERVIEW GROUP
THURSDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2006
REPORT ON BOROUGH POLICY IN RELATION TO REQUESTS TO INSTALL TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ON BOROUGH LAND
PART OF THE PUBLISHED FORWARD PLAN – YES
STATUS – SERVICE DECISION
- PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1To inform Members of the Borough’s existing procedure in relation to planning applications submitted in respect of telecommunication equipment.
1.2To request Members to consider the procedure and proposed safeguards regarding applications made for such equipment where the land is owned by the Borough.
- DECISION REQUIRED
2.1To make a recommendation to Cabinet and Council that officers, proactively working with the telecommunication industry, be authorised to consider the use of Borough land for telecommunication installations in appropriate locations subject to the procedures and safeguards set out in section 5 of the report.
2.2That the Council decision on 16 May 2000 not to allow the use of Borough land for telecommunication equipment unless it had been considered by Council be revoked.
3.BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3.1At the Resources Overview Group meeting on 24 November 2005 consideration was given to amending the existing policy in relation to requests for telecommunication equipment on Borough land.
3.2The existing policy relates to the motion passed at Council on 16 May 2000 when it was agreed “not to allow the use of its land for telecommunication stations unless it has been considered by the Council”. This decision came about due to concerns about public safety.
3.3Following the report to the Resources Overview Group meeting on 24 November 2005 it was recommended that:-
(i)Agreement be given in principle to authorise officers to proactively work with the Telecommunications Industry, to consider the use of Borough land for telecommunication installations in appropriate locations, subject to the normal safeguards of Planning, Environment and Asset Management requirements; and
(ii)Officers be requested to report back to this Overview Group on the options for safeguards regarding land ownership and safeguards relating to planning issues, and also taking account of public concerns, prior to a Recommendation being made to Cabinet/Council.
3.4The following Motion was passed at Council on 20 December 2005:
(i)Mobile Telephone Masts
“This Council recognises that there are occasions when it would be more appropriate for mobile phone masts to be located on Council property rather than private property or Highway land. Council also acknowledges that delays do occur due to the existing requirement for full Council approval which can result in that option not being pursued.
Council therefore resolves to delegate such decisions to Cabinet or a Portfolio Holder. It further requests that a Code of Practice be adopted to ensure consistency in decision making, take account of precautionary health principles, particularly regarding the proximity of schools or residential properties, visual amenity and the merit of potential alternatives.”
Signed:-Councillors Clements, Mrs Moore, Brooke, Mrs James, Allen, Trent, Wilson, Belcham, Mrs Deas, Miss Wilson and Meachin
It was RESOLVED that the matter “be referred to a special meeting of the Resources Overview Group to be convened as soon as possible in January 2006”. However, due to the time constraints and the matters to be considered the soonest feasible date was in fact the scheduled meeting of the Resources Overview Group on 9 February 2006, where Members would be given the opportunity to discuss this.
3.5As a result of the decisions it has been necessary to identify the safeguards that can be put in place through a new procedure. This procedure obviously needs to be distinct from the planning procedures and controls but also complement that process.
4.0CURRENT PLANNING PROCEDURES
4.1At present there are two planning procedures that are followed when a mobile phone operator identifies a potential location for their telecommunication equipment. This normally involves informal discussions with the operator or their agents prior to any application being submitted.
4.2If the proposal is for an aerial which is less than 15 metres in height and it is not in a Conservation Area it is deemed to fall within Permitted Development. However, it still requires “prior approval” by the Borough and this must be done within 56 days or it is deemed to have been approved. Any Member can “red card” the application and require it to be formally considered by the Planning Committee. If this does not happen the application is dealt with as a delegated matter and the application is approved or rejected on officer recommendations.
4.3The only issues that can be taken in to account when dealing with a planning application are location and appearance. The courts have ruled on more than one occasion that, so long as the proposal complies with the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines, the Local Planning Authority should not consider Health any further notwithstanding considerations of public concern.
4.4If the application is for an aerial that is over 15 metres or it is within a Conservation Area then a full application is needed and this has to go to the Planning Committee for consideration and no deemed approval is available to the applicants.
4.5Where an application is submitted on land not within the ownership of the operator notice has to be served on the appropriate land owner.
4.6The growth in demand and the requirement of new technology are leading to an increase in the numbers of masts and a reduction in the size of cells. This means in the future masts will impinge on more property although the signal strength in smaller cells will be less. Operators already discuss roll out programmes with Local Planning Authorities on a regular basis.
5.0PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH RADIO ANTENNA MAST APPLICATIONS
5.1Consequent upon the Council revoking its decision made on 16 May 2000 it is proposed that thefollowing procedure would then apply when the Borough receives a request, as land owner, for the installation of telecommunication equipment.
5.2A number of factors will have to be taken in to consideration including the potential suitability of the site. This will be largely dependent on the proposed location taking in to account environmental and estate management considerations. It would be a requirement that mobile phone operators identify sites which are, on balance, further away from the more populated local communities reducing perceived concerns.
5.3The Head of any Service Unit that has a responsibility for the day to day management of the site will be contacted to ascertain the desirability of the proposed use in the location indicated.
5.4Asset Management planning will also need to be taken in to consideration to ensure there are no proposals, such as future development, that could be adversely affected by the use of the site for telecommunication equipment.
5.5Ward Members will of course also be consulted on the suitability of the site and the views taken in to account prior to any formal approval of the matter.
5.6All applications would be subject to prior planning approval as appropriate.
5.7The installation would have to comply with the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines with regard to omissions exposure, taking in to account any potential cumulative impact of adjoining antennas, in addition to any Planning or Building Regulation requirements.
5.8The installation would require the prior completion of a lease on agreed terms including the provision of regular rent reviews.
5.9Approval to the granting of long leases to Utility Companies for substations, gas governors etc is already delegated to the Head of Property Services. As the mobile phone operators are effectively the fourth Utility (along with Gas, Electricity and Water/Sewerage) it is reasonable that these applications would be considered using the same delegation process after all planning and consultation processes have been completed.
5.10The lease would have to be excluded from the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act to ensure no security of tenure was granted.
5.11The lease would allow assignment but would prohibit subletting or site sharing. However, this could be varied subject to agreement on the terms taking in to account any site pressures.
5.12The operator would be responsible for obtaining satisfactory public liability insurance, keeping the site and apparatus in good and tenantable repair, the installation of a separate electricity supply and the payment of any rates in connection with the use.
ARTHUR GREEN
HEAD OF PROPERTY SERVICES
Lead Officer:
Kevin Judd
Estates Manager
Ext 1295
Background Papers:
Motion to Council – 16 May 2000
Report to Resources Overview Group 24 November 2005
Motion to Council – 20 December 2005
Page 1 of 5