Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control) Bill

House of Commons, 18 March 2005.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I have been a victim of passive talking out during today's proceedings, but I am pleased to have the opportunity to present my Bill to the House. I want to start by thanking the sponsors and giving special recognition to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who introduced a similar Bill last year and was generous in allowing me access to the material that he acquired at that time. I should also like to thank for their help my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), who is chairman of the all-party group on mobile phones. I could mention many other colleagues, but I have specifically referred to three colleagues from three parties across the House. Their support is a measure of the importance of this issue to many Back-Bench Members.

John Horam (Conservative, Orpington)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his choice of subject, which I also believe is an important one. As he rightly says, the Bill has a great deal of all-party support. It is essential to change the law, but I also want to highlight the importance of examining the health aspects of the problem.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I agree, and if I can talk fast enough I shall reach that part of my speech in a few minutes' time. Some local authorities, again of all political persuasions, have passed resolutions in support of the principle of the Bill.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I would like to confirm that. Worthing is now Conservative-controlled, but I shall leave that aside, as the Liberal Democrats—except for the former mayor—were also worried about the issue. Given the chance, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I will support the Bill.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Right—well, I shall just carry on making progress. I would also like to point out that 119 of my own constituents have been in touch with me in support of the Bill. That gives me some hope about what will happen in a few weeks' time.

I doubt whether there is one Member of the House who has not, at some stage, heard community groups and organisations explaining their concerns about the introduction of mobile phone technology.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

rose—

Francis Maude (Conservative, Horsham)

rose—

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I give way first to my hon. Friend.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is a pity that, after the procrastinations of Conservative Members earlier, we do not have more time to debate the Bill. One of the key issues arising from the Court of Appeal judgment in what has become known as the Harrogate case highlights a confusion that lies at heart of Government policy—the view that there are no health risks to be considered in respect of planning, while we hear from the Department of Health that there are indeed such health risks. In the light of the response of the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) earlier this week, does my hon. Friend believe that, whether or not his Bill succeeds, the Government must make it absolutely clear that health risks should be taken into consideration in dealing with planning applications?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I agree. Indeed, one of the Bill's provisions gives the opportunity to assess whether a mast in a certain location presents specific health risks—for example, to schools or health facilities.

Francis Maude (Conservative, Horsham)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier that there was support among all parties for the Bill, but he will recall that in a recent by-election, the official election literature said that Labour would

"do everything we can to ensure that there are no more phone masts near schools and hospitals".

My constituents in Horsham are particularly concerned about the proximity of some proposed masts to large concentrations of children in schools.

Has the hon. Gentleman had any indication from the Government, particularly in the light of what was said at the by-election, that they will give time and support to the Bill, which commands widespread support, to ensure that it gets on the statute book, enabling local councils to do exactly what Labour said that it wanted to achieve?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I may be able to answer the right hon. Gentleman, because the Under-Secretary wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on 15 March. She commented on the fact that there was concern, but added that if there was major concern on the part of the school or the parents, they could ask the network operator to adjust the antenna. I draw the attention of the House to Marple Hall high school in my constituency, where a mast was fixed to a school building with the consent of the governors. However, there was subsequently a great deal of unrest and the governors rescinded their decision, only to discover that the contract that they, and every other person who has taken an antenna on to their land, had signed meant that they had no rights. They could not ask for the antenna to be withdrawn and they had signed away their rights in terms of replacement or repair. What the Government said to my hon. Friend is just unenforceable as things stand.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The hon. Gentleman has been very generous, and some of my constituents have written to ask me to come and listen to him today. I have constituents, in Ashley Green and Chalfont in particular, who are very concerned about mast applications and installations. What would he say when a proposed site is near not a school but a nursery to which babies and young children go? The views of parents are not going to be taken into consideration. Is that not worrying? Would his Bill help to address this problem?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Yes, the Bill as drafted does exactly that. It gives the managing body of a school, health facility and, explicitly, nursery the right to give notice. The Bill refers to a notice period of 28 days. I met the mobile operator companies yesterday and they told me that that was far too short. We may propose a longer period in Committee, but the principle must be right—that someone who owns and manages land should have the right to say what should be on it, and not be in a position where an oppressive contract signs away their rights for the future.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very generous. I particularly welcome the part of the Bill dealing with class D. Is it not iniquitous—this is happening in Sussex, which is why the county is disproportionately represented today—that mobile phone masts can be replaced by tetramasts on the same site as mobile masts without reference to the landlord and without planning controls, causing fear among local people about health concerns? Nothing can be done about that and 0 2 , which operates these things, does not want to know. Is that not disgraceful?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I almost regret giving way. If the hon. Gentleman had not spoken for 30 minutes in the previous debate, I could have given a fuller answer.

This Bill is not about dismantling the mobile phone industry. Mobile phones are a public good, usually. There are 60 million of them in circulation and 40,000 masts. In 1984, the Conservative Government were a little too liberal in setting up the industry by relaxing planning controls, and they have been followed by a Labour Government who have been too conservative in not putting things right.

The result is that while 40,000 masts have gone up and the majority have caused no difficulty at all, insensitive and inappropriate siting have clearly been major causes of discontent in some examples. Local residents, councils and councillors are baffled and frustrated as they cannot get their concerns taken seriously, or in many cases even considered at all.

If I wanted to put up a garage or a conservatory, I would need more permissions than if I wanted to put up a telecommunications mast. Up to the height of 15 m, which is higher than the Chamber, planning permission is not needed. There are dozens of stories of people coming home from work to find a mast that they knew nothing about at the end of their garden. One elderly person who has been in touch with me opened the curtains one morning to discover a mast that they did not know was going to be there.

The mobile phone companies say that they have to respond to demand and that this is a commercial operation. I understand that point—but so is a supermarket or a petrol station, and they have to ask for such permission.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

My hon. Friend knows that mobile phone companies have produced 10 commitments to allay concern, but those have not worked in any respect whatever. The concern is still there, and there is no point in those companies coming back again and again with these 10 commitments, as they simply do not answer public concerns.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I agree with my hon. Friend. Rather like the 10 commandments, those commitments are more relevant in the breach than in the observance.

The mobile phone companies are not averse to cutting the odd corner. A case in my Hazel Grove constituency involves four blocks of terraced houses that, in effect, form a courtyard with a small industrial premises in the middle. In the middle of that, a mobile phone mast was put up a year or two ago. It was claimed to be below 15 m in height and not to need any permission. There was a great deal of noise and ruction about that.

Someone measured the mast and found that it was 16 m high, and therefore needed planning permission. The borough considered it and issued a refusal, for perfectly valid planning reasons. The company appealed, and that appeal was dismissed by the inspector. So, the mast had to come down, but the mobile phone company came back and said, "It's 16 m high now, but we will take it down, cut 1 m off and put it back up at 15 m. Is that what you really want us to do?" I am afraid that in many cases the phone companies have been their own worst enemies.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

May I assure the hon. Gentleman, who is introducing a sensible measure, that the next Conservative Government will require all phone masts, regardless of size and proposed site, to be subject to the full planning permission process? What is more, the next Conservative Government will revise planning guidance to local authorities to allow them to take—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. That is far too lengthy for an intervention.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I remind the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that in 1984, in the spirit of laissez-faire, the Conservatives withdrew every planning control. If they had done the right thing 20 years ago, I would not have to be standing here now introducing the Bill.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

And they tried to kill the Bill today.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Indeed. The contributions from Conservative Members have not helped.

I have already said that a provision in the Bill would allow owners of buildings and premises to regain control and take measures against phone companies if they did not wish masts to continue to be in place.

In the last couple of minutes available, I want to mention the health question. There is no doubt that there is a major concern for many people. I have not focused on that exclusively; there are, in any case, good planning reasons for bringing masts back into planning control. In 2000, Sir William Stewart's report established the idea of the precautionary principle, which I have embedded in my Bill. He brought to the fore the concept of a beam of greatest intensity, also sometimes called the main beam, and clause 1, which is based very much on the work of the hon. Member for West Suffolk, does exactly that.

A local health certificate would have to be given to a mast, and it would have to be produced if that mast were radiating towards a school, a health clinic or a home. Specific attention would then have to be paid to that particular mast's safety certificate, rather than having a national block exemption. There are six networks, many different types of mast and many different intensities. Having a national exemption is not appropriate for the many diverse situations that arise when masts are placed around the country.

My Bill would allow concerns related to a specific mast to be taken up. The fact is that if a mast failed its health test locally, there would be no mast; if it passed, there would be no grounds for a refusal. My analogy would be with road vehicles. Not all road vehicles are the same. Minis are different from—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 22 April.