Ministers Urged to Clarify Guidance on Telecoms Masts

12.00.00am UTC (GMT +0000) Mon 2nd Feb 2004

In a debate in parliament on telecom masts last week, Vincent Cable, MP urged government ministers to clear up the ambiguity and confusion surrounding planning approvals for telecom masts and to give greater flexibility to councils to determine where masts should go.

He has, separately, co-sponsored with Keith Vaz, the former government minister (who was brought up in Twickenham), a new Bill requiring councils to keep a full register of all new masts.

Vincent Cable said: "residents and even planners are understandably very confused over this issue. Government scientists say they can identify no health risks but say that there should be a 'precautionary' approach in

case a problem is discovered later. The government says these health

factors should not be considered by councils and planning inspectors; but then admits that 'public concern about health risks' IS a legitimate concern. It seems to be trying to have it both ways and is causing immense uncertainty as a result".

Exert from debate:

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): I apologise for letting my mobile phone go off earlier. That was a tribute to the double standards that most of us stoutly maintain on this subject; we make use of mobile phones while deploring the possible spin-off effects of their technology. I welcome the debate secured by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). I have six controversial mast applications in my constituency, all of which have generated petitions and protests. The key phrase in the hon. Gentleman's introductory statement was "lack of clarity". The combination of a lack of clarity and frustration causes so many problems for residents, planners and members of planning committees. They simply do not know how to deal with the problem.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): Even worse than a lack of clarity is the putting up of masts without planning consent, as has happened in Rogate and East Harting in my constituency. Subsequently, local people have to put pressure on district councils to try to get those masts removed. That is a wholly unacceptable way to deploy the technology.

Dr. Cable : Yes, I know. There is a wider issue about the weakness of third parties in planning appeals, but I will not pursue that rabbit down that particular hole. The uncertainty stems from two issues; the lack of clarity about the science, and planning guidance. On the science, Sir William Stewart did us a considerable disfavour. He considered the science and looked at the physics and the biology and concluded that there was no empirical evidence of any health impact. He considered the examples-the clusters of illnesses that have been cited-and made the valid point that the research was not epidemiological and did not stand up.

Having dismissed the scientific evidence, he could have said that there was no risk, as did the chief medical officer in relation to the MMR vaccine. Had he said that, we would have known where we stood, but he did not. He said that there must be a precautionary approach. He did not say a "precautionary principle", which is an environment policy term, but that there had to be a precautionary approach. Most people interpret his words on a common-sense basis as meaning that it is better to be safe than sorry. Sir William also said-this is important-that we have to be particularly careful with schools, because children have thin skull bones, so there may be extra cause for concern. In saying that, he stated that there was a problem. Clearly, people will interpret his words in a worried way. Local authorities can hardly be blamed when they respond with particular sensitivity to planning protests in respect of schools. In the review of the science that I know the Department has carried out, the scientists did not help us as to whether any clear conclusion has been reached about the new 3G masts, which many argue are more potent and therefore more dangerous.

The second point is the confusion generated by the planning process. As I understand it, PPG8 makes clear that local authorities have to judge applications purely on planning grounds-the aesthetics, or the visual impact-and are not allowed to consider health impact. However, in response to a debate that I initiated on 21 May 2002, the Minister's predecessor said, repeating what has been said in other contexts: "Our guidance is clear that health considerations and public concern can, in principle, be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission"-[Official Report, 21 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 274.]

Therefore, councils have been told that health impacts are not relevant, but that public concerns about health are. I have great difficulty in getting my head round this problem, and planners have difficulty in understanding it. With the best will in the world, members of planning committees of all parties cannot understand what is expected of them through the planning process. My own local council, a consensus of Liberal and Conservative members, has taken a stand on a particular case to test the issue. It has taken the case of a mast that beams directly into a school. The planning officer said "We have no grounds for turning it down. There is no planning problem. There are no visual amenity issues." However, there has been a large petition from the school, which closed certain classrooms for fear of the health effect. The council has overridden the advice of officials, saying, "Here there is a demonstrable fear about health. Let's test it out in a planning appeal." I do not know what the outcome will be, but we need clarification.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cable : I shall take just one more intervention.

Mr. Mitchell : I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not here when I made the point. In fact the situation is worse than that. In the High Court judgment in the case of Mrs. Jodie Phillips, Mr. Justice Richards said that people's health must be taken into account. Therefore, there is a complete impasse in the law; we cannot get it right.

Dr. Cable : I was here throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech, but the comment is helpful. I shall be interested to see whether the planning inspector who hears my local appeal is aware of that ruling and takes it into account. We need to move on. I want to make a suggestion about the way in which hon. Members' concerns for greater flexibility in siting masts can be taken into account. The Government could help to solve the problem by giving guidance along the following lines. They could say to local authorities, "We wish you to contribute to the roll-out of masts. That is a national obligation. Each local authority, depending on its population, density and topography, should, as it does with housing, construct a certain number of units. However, there is discretion within that as to where masts are sited." If a local authority chose to have a moratorium on masts within 100 metres of a school, it can do so, provided that it compensates with additional masts somewhere else, leaving councils with discretion over where masts are sited.

If that were to happen, the industry's objectives would be maintained and our constituents' concerns substantially alleviated. I should be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that guidance to councils along those lines-which could then be used as a basis for dealing with planning appeals-would help to deal with the problem.