Telecommunications Developments
We now move on to the sixth agenda item, which concerns telecommunications developments. The closing date for responses to the Scottish Executive consultation document is 16 February. I suggest that the committee forms a response based on members' views on the matter and puts that in writing to the minister, Sam Galbraith.
The committee has led many of the discussions on this matter and we can claim to have done much to make significant changes to the Executive's approach. Although we began with a prior approval system, in many areas full planning permission will now be required.
This is not normally my practice but, as one of the surviving members of that long inquiry, I would like to lead some of the discussion on this matter. Although we should recognise that the Executive has come a long way, there are some areas where it has not picked up and run with our ideas, and I would be happy to hear from members on that point.
First, the fact that non-ground-based masts will not be included in full planning powers causes me great concern; we deliberately focused on that and made straightforward recommendations to the Executive. Furthermore, although the Executive gives the nod to mast sharing, a nod is not strong enough to make it clear where the issue fits into priorities related to the rolling out of masts.
The committee was fairly vociferous about the precautionary approach on health issues and about making health a material planning condition. Although the Executive has acknowledged aspects of that area, it has not gone the distance with us, which I hope is a concern shared by the committee. The absence of risk assessment on any developments, which is an issue that we raised in our report, is also a weakness.
I am also concerned that the Executive has made no commitment to fit telecommunications development planning into the national planning process. Although doing so would have acknowledged the importance of the industry and its key social and economic role, it would nonetheless have made it clear that the roll out of masts throughout Scotland is a national planning issue. I am not sure about the Executive's position on including communications in the national planning strategy.
I am sure that members will raise other issues, but having reflected on our discussions, the detailed advice that we received, our own lengthy inquiry and the Stewart inquiry that followed—which highlighted the precautionary approach and other health issues—I feel that the Executive has not taken sufficient cognisance of all the information. Although it has come a long way, we should push further on the issues that I have raised. After that fairly lengthy introduction, I am more than happy to take views from committee members.
The committee as it was formerly made up did a very good job on the inquiry; I understand how it reached its recommendations based on the evidence that it took. Although I agree that the Executive has come some way, I share the convener's concern that the planning requirements for ground-based masts should be extended to non-ground-based masts. However, the antennae are as much of an issue as the masts. The masts can stand without the antennae and not create difficulties—although I realise that there would be no point in having a mast in that case. The problem is with the antennae. Consideration should be given to whether a planning application should have to be submitted for a certain size of antenna of a given strength.
I share your view on mast sharing, convener. I am disappointed that the consultation paper does not recommend that mast sharing should be a legislative requirement or enforced in some way.
I have read the consultation paper, which seems to be a planning document that deals with the aesthetics and amenity value of masts rather than one that deals with health issues. Like you, convener, I am concerned that the paper does not say more on health. Development planning must be part of the national planning process, but stronger guidelines should also be issued to local authorities on dealing with exclusion zones—areas where masts cannot be located because they are sensitive for the community. The paper does not say much about that.
The paper deals with some specific issues, such as that of replacement masts. The draft order talks about replacement masts being permitted development if they grow by less than 2m. How many times can a new mast be put in place? Can the operators' difficulties with replacement masts be overcome if those masts are new masts that are allowed to grow by 2m? From what I have seen, there is no conclusive evidence on how the Executive intends to deal with that issue. Beanpole masts, which exist to supply the police, are thin but tall and could be replaced suddenly by a mast that is 2m wide. The issue of replacement masts must be examined, as the parameters have been drawn too widely.
I share the convener's concern about the material on housing the masts. We are talking about permitted developments for something that is under 9m high, but that is a heck of a development, particularly when one considers the legislation that requires people to seek planning permission if they want to install a fence of more than 2m high within 200yd of a road. That is another contradiction, particularly given the relative impact of a mast and of the equipment that houses it compared with that of a fence. We should require a reduction in the height of those developments.
I am not entirely convinced about microcells, on which I would like to hear the views of other committee members, particularly as microcells are now appearing on local authority lamp posts. The beam effect from microcells may be at the same height as people's bedrooms and they might be subjected to long-term exposure. I am not sure that the Executive has got that issue right yet. Some evidence was led during the committee's earlier deliberations and I am not sure that we got to the nitty-gritty on microcells.
I would like to discuss retrospective planning permission, which is the most difficult and onerous issue for the Executive to tackle, as I would like to suggest some solutions if full retrospective planning powers are not put in place. The question is whether a legislative framework that would allow for retrospective planning permission for all masts should be introduced. Although I would like to try to find a way to do introduce such a framework, I understand the difficulties that that might present because of the costs involved.
At this stage, I am simply signalling the menu of issues that I would like to discuss, rather than being specific about what I think the proposals should contain. I could be specific, but I understand that other members also have views.
I will not reiterate the points that other members have made but will try to add to the discussion.
One of the forward-looking elements of the committee's report was our attempt to use the introduction of planning permission to enforce a dialogue between the operators and the planning authorities on developing a more rational approach to the distribution, development and siting of masts.
What came out of the consultation seems to have stemmed from a dialogue between the Executive and the operators, and was geared to particular regulations on masts. Evidence of a clear debate between the Executive and local authorities on amenity issues is missing from that dialogue, as are mechanisms to arrive at a more rational approach. I would like there to be either information or some realignment of approach, which would give the authorities grounds for rejecting planning applications for telecommunications masts that are not based on the aesthetics or size of the mast, but on its effect on the local community. That need not be done in an unreasonable way, as everybody recognises that masts have to go up to provide a service—after all, many if not all committee members are mobile phone users.
There is a sense that the clustering of masts is affecting certain localities. That is sometimes simply because of geographical facility, and is often because the companies are lazy. They simply try to find the most easily acquirable piece of land and slap their mast there.
There is evidence in my constituency—and, I am sure, in others—that the operators are not adopting a view that is in the broader public interest. We have to develop some mechanism whereby the broader public interest can be secured more effectively. That means that we need some mechanism for propelling the operators towards mass sharing and towards consideration of alternative sites—despite their being more expensive or technically less optimum.
We need our final report to include some mechanism whereby authorities have greater space in which to push operators in broadly desirable directions.
I support everything that Bruce Crawford and Des McNulty have said. I want to concentrate, first, on the health issue. The expansion of the network is predicated on an expansion in people's purchase of cellphones. There is already evidence that young children should not use them extensively. I am very disappointed that the Executive's paper seems more or less to tell local authorities to introduce the precautionary principle on health issues at their peril, because they could land up fighting a court case. The Executive is placing all the responsibility on local authorities, and is not accepting any responsibility for setting standards itself.
Secondly, I am very disappointed by the failure to introduce planning permission for masts on buildings. I can see that problems will arise in rural areas as a result: to avoid erecting masts in places where there will be controls—at ground-based sites—the companies will use every farmhouse, barn and unused building in the countryside that they can get their hands on. We will end up with no controls on masts whatever.
Thirdly, we should include a forceful response to the Executive's lack of understanding about what we have said on mast sharing, on the retrospective consideration of the planning of masts and on a need for the companies and the local authorities to get together—I am very disappointed in that, too.
I agree with you, convener, and with other members. The piece of work that the committee did on this matter has most visibly and immediately affected communities, and the committee reacted forcibly to the evidence session and to all the letters from the public.
I particularly agree with the point that Robin Harper has just made. For me, the greatest disappointment of all has been on the health aspect. Not a week goes by without some other research or study that raises health concerns about the radiation. No definitive scientific evidence to that effect exists, but late last night I read in The Sunday Times yet another article that gave chapter and verse on the issue.
I hope that the committee will make strenuous representations to the Scottish Executive that health boards should be allowed an input into the planning process. That is vital. Robin Harper is right to say that it is just not good enough to put the onus on local planners to consider whether to take on board the issue. If we value the precautionary principle, about which we have all spoken, it is vital that we do that.
The last issue that I will raise is a moratorium on the developments that are taking place. I think that every member has seen the rush of applications to erect masts. The minister should be implored to ensure that a moratorium is adopted, because the way the process works means that the public are suffering. The inquiry was long and detailed and the committee deserves to be appreciated for all the effort that it put into such a vital issue.
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today, convener. I reiterate the grave concerns about not including all masts and structures in the planning regime. Such large exceptions mean that control and influence are lost.
It is always difficult to adopt retrospective legislation, but I have lodged a motion on the point, arguing that it is not unreasonable to suggest that we should call for retrospective planning applications from the date at which it became obvious that masts are a serious consideration that require planning permission. In that way, companies could reasonably expect to have to apply for planning permission. Making the process retrospective to that point did not seem unfair. That was not accepted, but the committee could push the idea, because the solution it would achieve would be similar to that which a moratorium would achieve, without stopping mast installation. It would make the companies consider the criteria that are relevant to planning applications.
Companies are becoming more aware of public pressure on mast siting. From events in my constituency, my impression is that they are becoming more sensitive to public pressure. At least twice, at opposite ends of my constituency, public pressure has resulted in a mast installation being moved or adjusted. It is obvious that bringing the masts within the planning regime will have an effect—the threat of doing that is having an effect now. We might formalise that by making planning permission retrospective to a time at which the companies could reasonably have been expected to have taken such considerations into account.
Thank you very much. I do not think that any other members wish to comment on the matter, so I will try to summate and give our response.
The committee's response must rest on its report. Therefore, members who have introduced other considerations may wish to submit their views to the minister under their own steam. I will pick out a couple of points, which Nora Radcliffe finished on and which Bruce Crawford mentioned. When the committee prepared the report, we had a fairly lengthy discussion about retrospectivity. We chose not to recommend retrospective planning legislation because of several problems. The committee was clear about that issue. However, that decision does not stop members from writing to the minister about that approach.
In the report, the committee said that the communications plans in local communities would allow local planning officers to negotiate over existing sites and sites for development. Therefore, they could—for want of a better phrase—remove the eyesores. As the companies came along with plans for future proposals, the officers could negotiate by removing some sites and offering others. That would increase the quality of previous decisions that were made under a much slacker legislative position.
With regard to microcells, the point that we put to the minister was about output and the effects of individual pieces of appliance and equipment. Even in the time since we completed our inquiry, technology in the industry has moved on. I suggest to members who have raised that issue that it would be more appropriate to raise those concerns with the minister. Obviously, we will cover the issue that Helen Eadie and Robin Harper raised: that although responsibility for decision making in this area has been put back into the hands of local authorities, they have been given no framework and no guidance. That must be linked to our concerns about output and possible health effects. If members are comfortable with that, I think that that would be the best way to proceed. To be blunt, we do not have time to reinvestigate retrospective planning and microcells. We based our report on our decisions at that time. I should stress that that decision does not prevent members from making their own views known to the minister.
Given that the deadline is February 16 and we do not have time to reinvestigate, and given that some of us were not members of the committee when the decisions were made, when we submit our response, could we indicate that the committee accepts that the situation has moved on since our report and that there are considerations that we did not investigate at the time? Would that be a way of dealing with the fact that the situation has changed?
To be blunt, I would prefer to take the route that I suggested because I would like to take more advice about microcells before commenting. That may mean that we conduct a further investigation or take advice under a separate heading in our future work programme. I think that it is important that we stick to our original report, although it is true to say that technology has moved on.
On the extremely poor conduct of the industry, which a number of members have mentioned, there was a rush to make developments—I saw that in my constituency—and the local authority has one hand tied behind its back when it tries to deal with the problem.
I accept that the situation has changed since we completed our report, but I suggest that, as that report was based on the scientific and technical evidence that we had at the time, it might not be worth while revisiting some of the issues.
There is not much disagreement with what Bruce Crawford says about microcells. Our report was based on information about the power output and specification of the cells and the valid point that microcells should not be brought within the planning system remains in the report. I do not think that we have time to deal with that issue before February 16 in the investigative way in which we conducted the inquiry. I would prefer it if we stuck to our original findings on the matter.
The fact that some of the important issues in our report have not been taken up means that we should emphasise their importance. If we are unhappy about the way in which some of the issues that have been taken up have been dealt with—as is the case with the ground-based masts as opposed to the buildings-based masts—the most effective action that the committee could take would be to submit a crisp and, I hope, short report that points out the difference between what we recommended and what is being proposed and asks whether that is satisfactory. If we decide that it is unsatisfactory, we should set out the reasons why we believe it to be so, referring back to our report. We should not take on new issues at this stage, although I accept the point that new members who have additional experience on matters that they want to raise should be able to do so. Our role is to match the Executive's response to our report and make our comments based on that.
I support what Des McNulty has said. It has taken the Executive nearly a year to respond to our original report, which I regard as quite intolerable. We should press the points that we want to make as quickly and expeditiously as possible, and preferably through Parliament, so that we can get something on the statute book as soon as possible. Otherwise, the entire stable will have bolted before the door has been closed.
Obviously, we have to accept that we have an inheritance from the committee's previous work. As individuals, we might not agree with everything that emerged from the inquiry that took place, but the committee has to proceed on the basis of what has happened.
However, I think that Fiona McLeod was not making a point about the specifics of microcells, but was arguing for the inclusion in our response of a general recognition that things have moved on and that there are issues that the committee did not discuss that will need to be considered, although the committee will not do so itself. That would allow the public to see that there has been movement.
I would like clarification on two matters. There is new information about replacement issues and equipment issues—about the dimensions of the housing, and the statutory instrument. Are we taking on board my suggestion about the dimensions of the equipment? Perhaps doing that would be opening the door too far. That is new information from the Executive, which could not form part of the previous evidence, because we did not know what the earlier proposals were. What will we do on replacement and equipment issues?
The retrospective planning aspect is the most difficult one. Nora Radcliffe suggested how that might be dealt with. I understand the committee's situation, but having read through the material, I think that if I had taken part in the process, I would have suggested that we seek zones around sensitive areas. For example, if a mast were within 100m—to use a distance off the top of my head—of a school it would require planning permission retrospectively. If we had done that, we would have started to deal with the matter of retrospective planning permission for all masts. You did not discuss that element during the inquiry process, and I feel a bit encumbered now. I recognise that and will deal with it in my own way.
It is open to you to do that. I will not express a view on what you have said, but if the committee were to adopt that view, I would want to take evidence again from planning officers and representatives of the industry, and go through the issue again. I am happy if any member of the committee or the Parliament wants to pursue that issue.
We recommended that anything in excess of
90 cu m—that is, 3m high—would be subject to full planning. The Executive has been more stringent on occasion than what we recommended, so it is not the case that it has done only the minimum. We will bring back to the committee a draft report or letter to the minister, so you can raise any further concerns on the detail. What I wanted to do today—I think that we have done so—was to identify clearly the hotspots from our previous consideration and what members regard as acceptable and unacceptable in the Executive's response. Once our letter has been drafted, we will welcome further comment on its content. It would be useful if the committee agreed to proceed on that basis.
I reiterate my extreme disappointment with the conduct of the industry. Since our report and the Stewart inquiry report were published, the industry has acted irresponsibly. In many ways, it has increased the concern and has done nothing to enhance the public's opinion of operators or of agents who operate on behalf of companies. I have heard of cases locally where plots of land have been bought, divided into five and sold to five different companies for five different masts. None of that makes sense; it is all designed to subvert the intent of the Parliament and the Executive. I hope that the operators will learn from this lesson that that approach will only increase our desire to have further control over them if they intend to act in that way in future.
I am happy that members continue to bring to me constituency issues that are of common concern. On that note, unless there are any other comments I will close this item.
I have one point. It would be useful for the committee to indicate its unanimous support for your remarks.
Indeed. I am happy to record that the committee's view on the matter was unanimous. I thank Robin for that comment.
We now move to agenda item 7, which we agreed to take in private because it is a discussion about a fact-finding visit on the water inquiry. I thank those who have sat with us throughout this morning's proceedings, in particular those former committee colleagues who have attended. We will discuss our fact-finding mission, and once we have agreed our decisions, our actions will be made known to the public.
Meeting continued in private until 12:26.