BOROUGH OF POOLE
SERVICE PROVISION SCRUTINY AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
13 SEPTEMBER 2007
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING DESIGN AND CONTROL SERVICES
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS ROLL OUT PROCEDURES
1.PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1To respond to the Motion carried at the Meeting of Council on 19 June 2007 which recommended that the Government model of Best Practice for dealing with the roll out programme of potential phone mast applications be adopted by Council and implemented through Planning Services.
2.RECOMMENDATION
(i)To note the report
(ii)Local Economy Overview Group be requested to assess the recommendations set out in the Review of the Code of Best Practice and, where there are perceived benefits from changing the procedure, to ask the Head of Planning Design and Control Services to incorporate those changes in future discussions with the Mobile Operators.
3.BACKGROUND
3.1The Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development was a joint document drawn up and agreed by representatives of Central Government, Local Government and the Mobile Phone Industry. It was first produced in 1996 and further revised in 2002. It is a voluntary code that “provides clear and practical advice to ensure the delivery and significantly better and more effective communication and consultation between Operators, Local Authorities and local people.”
3.2The Code also aims to standardise procedures and forms so that there is a measure of consistency across the country, sets out to explain the technical features of mobile systems and provides good practice guidance on the siting and design of telecommunications development.
3.3Operators have agreed to provide details of their network roll out for the year ahead to all LPA’s on an annual basis.
3.4So far as point 1 in the Motion is concerned: telecommunications companies have agreed on a voluntary basis to provide roll out plans. It is not mandatory as suggested.
3.5In the Borough of Poole the majority of Operators have now established coverage through sites that are built and operational or which have obtained planning permission. T-Mobile has been the most recent newcomer on the scene. Their roll out programme is still being developed.
3.6To date the Council has received roll out plans and had discussions with the various operators during which we have been able to highlight specific points of concern, such as conservation areas, schools and sensitive buildings. We have also been able to use our knowledge to point out where, within the areas of search, other masts might be available for mast sharing.
3.7So far as the second point in the Motion is concerned: the Code of Best Practice actually states that Local Authorities “may find it advantageous” to compile all the operators’ annual roll out plans into a single plan and this strategic approach can help to facilitate discussions and ensure that operators work together where search areas overlap.
3.8Certainly, composite plans can be very helpful in discussions with local stakeholders where sensitive local issues are apparent. The Code of Practice is ambivalent about the merits of joint meetings with all operators, recognising that there may be instances where meetings with a single operator would be more helpful – this could be to do with commercial confidentiality or, as in Poole, where one or two operators are particularly active.
3.9When it comes to consultation it is the responsibility of the mobile phone companies to institute that based on the Code of Best Practice. At the roll out meeting there is an opportunity for the LPA to influence the depth and scope of consultation and the experience from Poole indicates that the operators have taken their responsibilities seriously and undertaken consultation quite widely.
3.10It does, of course, need to be understood that the majority of proposals are based on a technical requirement to complete coverage with “cells” which can, depending on the amount of traffic passing through the network, be quite small in diameter. That can be an extremely limiting factor when it comes to looking for alternative locations for mobile masts, particularly with the new 3G technology. The scope for influence is, therefore, somewhat reduced.
3.11In 2006 a review of the Code of Best Practice was undertaken and a report has been submitted to DCLG.
3.12That concluded that both operators and LPA’s felt that the annual submission of roll out plans was important but the variation in information provided by different operators was sometimes a cause for concern.
3.13Picking up the third point of the Motion – the Review notes that after the roll out meeting has taken place some LPA’s hold seminars for Councillors and interested members of the public with a wide agenda. It is important to note that these purposely exclude discussion of specific sites or applications and concentrate instead on case law, telecommunications, application statistics, mobile technology, recent research, developments in design etc. The Report recommends that a two stage process is maintained – LPA/operator discussions followed by wider, open meetings.
3.14Moving on then to the fourth point of the Motion – whilst the LPA can identify relevant community/residents groups, the consultation process is for the mobile operator to undertake. This currently happens within the Borough. The Review notes that Ward Members often choose not to become involved in discussions at the pre-application stage but prefer to wait until an application has been submitted for determination. That is very much a matter for local choice and should not exclude Councillors from the initial round of consultation undertaken by the operators.
3.15The Review concludes that “the broad process of undertaking pre-application consultation is one that has brought significant improvement (my emphasis) in consultation and information provision, compared to the period before the introduction of the Code.”
3.16The final point in the Motion suggests that consultation responses should be reported back to the mobile operators so that amendments may be made prior to formal submissions of applications. If the consultation process is to retain any validity, this should already be occurring. There are, though, as pointed out above, some locations that simply do not lend themselves to alternative site selection. The Review suggests that the current information template only requires operators to give the briefest of explanations when alternative sites are dismissed, although the operators themselves suggest that they already collect a considerable amount of data on alternative sites, not all of which is passed on with the planning application. It also recognises that the involvement of Councillors is sometimes seen as desirable, especially in areas where there are particular environmental or social sensitivities. It can become problematic if the community and the Planning Officers disagree about the optimum location for the mast site based on the technical appraisals submitted by the operators and the particular site context.
3.17The Review suggests that the submissions made to the LPA should be fuller in respect of a table of comments received with notes of any action taken in response, scale photomontages or other illustrations of context, plans showing the location of discounted alternative sites, together with more information about why those sites have not been selected, reference back to the roll out plan if the site did not feature on that schedule and a summary of the consultation responses received during pre-application discussions and any wider consultation so that the Planning Authority has a more comprehensive picture of local views.
3.18The Review suggests amendments to the Code of Best Practice which are essentially attempts to strengthen its powers and enhance its current “voluntary” status.
3.19It is worth examining the headline conclusions and recommendations from the Review in some detail.
3.20Since the Code was published there may have been significant improvements in process but “there remains a lack of trust, especially between the public and the operators, which needs more work to be overcome”.
3.21The most involved LPA’s engage in roll out and pre-application discussions and invest resources to foster the involvement of the local community. Others are not so heavily engaged and some of this is down to resources.
3.22There could be greater sharing of information between operators and agents to encourage the emergence of Best Practice on techniques and processes for community consultation. There should also be better cooperation between the industry and LPA’s on the status of consultation and the possible development of joint consultation strategies.
3.23Roll outs should continue and work to improve the process should also continue. There should be a continued emphasis on front loading the consultation process and consultation techniques should be updated. There is clarification needed on the status of any “consultation” and what it is intended to achieve – this goes back to the often limited scope for change in order to achieve technical outcomes.
3.24The code should specify the fuller information that should be provided with applications with more information on alternative sites and updated design information. Some work should also be carried out on how monitoring is undertaken, especially with multiple sites and potential cumulative impact.
4.CONCLUSION
4.1The Council works with mobile operators through an annual roll out programme, although the majority of the area has now been covered satisfactorily. Further upgrades in technology may well lead to a new upsurge in mast applications at some point in the future.
4.2It is for the operators to establish links with the local community based on advice from the LPA. All the guidance suggests that the roll out plan discussion should be a matter between the operators and the Officers of the LPA and that any public seminars or meetings should not be site specific. Local community groups and individuals have an opportunity to comment on and influence the final site selection procedure when advised of planning applications. The Review recommends more information on sites which have been discarded and that would certainly help to inform that dialogue.
4.3There is no difficulty in advising Ward Councillors of roll out plan proposals that affect their constituency and any feedback at that point can be passed on to the operators.
4.4Given the current arrangements there would appear to be little need to alter significantly the way in which the Council deals with the mobile operators, or the way in which consultation is undertaken. Although bringing Ward Members in after the roll out discussions would be a change, it is one that is procedurally very straightforward.
PETER WATSON
HEAD OF PLANNING DESIGN AND CONTROL SERVICES
Tel: 01202 633310
Email:
1