Official Report 279KB pdf
We can now welcome our first panel to this morning's meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee. Douglas Murray is the secretary of the Association of Scottish Community Councils. Timothy Parker is the deputy secretary of the Church of Scotland General Trustees. Findlay Turner is a member of the Scottish Churches Committee.
Good morning, gentlemen. Have the new planning regulations afforded organisations and local communities a greater say in the siting of telecommunications developments?
My feeling is that the effect has been quite neutral. My impression is that, from the churches' point of view, the regulations have not made people more vocal in these matters.
Certain procedures have been in place ever since we first started dealing with applications for inserting things in our buildings about six or seven years ago. The new procedures have possibly had the advantage that proposals for the installation on buildings of equipment such as radiocommunication masts are now brought more speedily to the attention of members of the community, particularly those who are adjacent to the buildings, because of the procedure for neighbour notification that is part of the planning application.
Churches are very much part of the community. Once such applications become known within congregations, the knowledge very quickly becomes public. The processes of the Church of Scotland at least are quite public. The meetings are open. Anyone who wishes to make representations to the Church of Scotland can ask to do so. Normally, the court would allow them to speak and make their problems known.
Does Mr Murray want to respond on behalf of the Association of Scottish Community Councils?
The new regulations have helped make people more aware of the planning system and the guidance that has been published. I have the perception that many more communities are now aware of what is happening. Prior to the introduction of the legislation, the fact that people did not know about developments was often what caused more of a problem when something suddenly appeared on their doorstep. The new regulations have addressed the main problem of awareness.
Have mobile operators become more sensitive to community, environmental and amenity issues since the introduction of the new regulations, or have they become less sensitive?
I think that the mobile operators have become more sensitive. With the introduction of the 10 commitments, the operators know that if they do not take the community along with them there is a strong chance that health fears and so on may mean that the development will backfire on them. The operators know that involving the community at an early stage and endeavouring to answer questions can be helpful to them. The regulations have therefore been beneficial.
The papers that we have received suggest that the Church of Scotland has the greatest experience of dealing with masts, as among the largest number of masts is attached to its churches. Do you have a feel for the number of times a proposal to erect a mast within the confines of a church or its grounds has been made and for the number of occasions such a proposal has been rejected? What percentage of mast proposals is rejected by the church because of the reaction in the local community, or by the planning department?
It is difficult to tell. I am the main person who deals with the proposals—I receive applications through the agents and have correspondence as a result of the local complications. About two thirds of proposals go forward, at least to the design or drawing stage, and about one third are rejected out of hand, for whatever reason. A further percentage is rejected once the plans and specifications have been examined, as certain concerns might arise at that stage. I would estimate that roughly two thirds of applications are successful and about one third are unsuccessful.
I want to focus on the proposals that reach the planning application stage. How many planning applications have been rejected? Can you give us a feel for how many have been rejected by planning departments? Is it a small percentage or a large percentage?
I would say that it is a small percentage. As is outlined in our submission, we always seek an indication that the planning department of the relevant local authority and, where a listed building is involved, Historic Scotland are satisfied that any proposal is acceptable within the existing regulations. We have far more dealings with those bodies than with the operators.
That leads to my final question, which is about the process. Given that people are being alerted earlier to the fact that applications have been made and it is more visible that that is happening, is the planning process responsive enough to local people's concerns, in your experience? They might be worried about a particular mast in a particular location.
It is difficult to say because, as I understand it, just as with a normal planning application and neighbour notification, there are relatively few grounds for a successful objection to a proposal for an adjacent building.
What about health grounds?
The system enables people in the vicinity to bring concerns to the local authority planning department's attention. Those concerns might not, strictly speaking, be about planning matters; they might be health concerns. Members will be aware that the Scottish Executive has views on how health considerations should be taken into account in the consideration of planning applications.
Could the Mobile Operators Association's 10 commitments to best siting practice be improved and, if so, how?
I am not actively involved with the 10 commitments because we have laid down our own procedures, which are described in our submission, but I know of the 10 commitments and I have a copy of the amended version, about which I consult MOA from time to time. The commitments are basically adequate, although there might be room for more consultation. However, the operators complain that they do not get the feedback that they want from certain local authorities.
I recall a recent media article in which concerns were raised about the siting of equipment in advertising signs at places such as petrol stations. The main concern was that that is an underhand way for operators to put equipment in place. If there were more transparency in the application process, community concerns would not spring up automatically. Communities should be consulted on special siting arrangements, including masts in church buildings, rather than only on the physical presence of ground masts. Concerns will automatically be raised in relation to anything that is seen to hide the equipment, rather than straightforward applications. Having said that, the pre-application process that most local authorities carry out with operators goes a long way to address the siting issues in many areas.
I am not terribly familiar with the commitments and how they work, but I wonder whether there is room for an advertisement stage in advance of the planning stage. If operators put adverts in local newspapers to say that they were considering an installation, that would give the public early notification and bring the matter to the public's attention earlier.
It would be useful if the paper could be supplied to the clerks for circulation. Thank you.
The paper is based on the guesstimates of the various other denominations. They stressed that the figures are not hard and fast, as quite often we do not know whether a building has something on it—buildings occasionally slip through the net.
I will direct to Mr Murray some questions about the views of the Association of Scottish Community Councils. In your submission you say that a community council would object to a telecommunications development only in exceptional circumstances. Will you expand on what you mean by that?
Objections on the ground of exceptional circumstances would be likely to relate to health concerns that might be raised by a community. The guidance in the new regulations has taken the sting out of health as a planning matter.
Does the fact that the new regulations are in place mean that not so many objections are being made on the ground of exceptional circumstances?
Our general impression is that a large number of concerns are addressed prior to the application going to a community council or out for general consultation. I note in other witness submissions that some applications are subject to bad neighbour notifications in the press. That requirement raises greater awareness of the subject.
Thank you. In your submission, you say that
I received one specific response from an urban area that said that telecommunications operators have approached community councils. In that particular set-up, the community councillor said that he would prefer not to have direct communications with the operators because, as a statutory consultee, a community council might have to consider the ethics of considering an application before a public meeting in the same way as local authority members must operate under specific guidance to give planning authority.
So you would be concerned if the telecommunications industry was lobbying community councils rather than just informing them that an application was going to be submitted?
Yes. Things vary from area to area. My community council represents a rural area. At our last meeting, which was around two weeks ago, there were three applications under the airwave project and there were no objections. The council was happy to pass both applications without any specific comments. Urban areas might view things differently.
Obviously, rural and urban areas have different concerns. Rural areas are often concerned about visual impact, whereas urban areas might not be. Health issues arise in rural and urban areas.
I have nothing specific. Community councils have made the general complaint that any major comments that they make on applications—whether or not they are for telecommunications masts—are largely disregarded unless there is quite a headstrong opinion that something is wrong with the application. Many community councillors do not look at the detail in pre-application discussions and the restrictions the system sets down, but there will possibly be a not-in-my-back-yard syndrome.
You rightly commented on the expected increase in the number of masts in the next few years and the increased number of applications. How would community councils view the idea of strengthening legislation to ensure that local authorities have the power to force operators to share masts? Rather than there being an increase in the number of masts throughout Scotland, perhaps there could be an increase in the number of masts that are shared by operators.
It seems to be thought that mast sharing should be more rigorously enforced. The companies seem to prefer not to share. A recent press article suggests that masts would have to go up every 500m to achieve coverage. They might have a problem with mast sharing, but I would have thought that, given telecommunications companies' current financial circumstances, they would opt for mast sharing rather than incur debt.
I hear what you say. However, given advances in technology whereby masts can now be only 9in high—I think that 210mm is quoted in a paper in Cardiff—would you not prefer a proliferation of smaller masts because of vertical height and separation distance requirements rather than a 40ft high structure in a community? Is not the jury still out on that matter?
I agree that the technology is advancing daily and that what was in place prior to the legislation is possibly no longer the norm. Smaller equipment can be set up in certain buildings and locations without anyone—apart from those who are involved—being aware of it, but I still feel that mast sharing or building sharing would have benefits for everyone.
Where it is suitable.
I will follow up on John Scott's comments. I am thinking in particular about rural areas where the visual impact often causes concern. Would local communities in rural areas prefer one big mast, which is highly visible because a lot of users put their equipment on it, or several smaller ones? I suspect that the answer is that it depends.
I come back again to the initial point that John Scott made. The changes in technology enable more mast sharing or equipment sharing. I know that there are concerns about the proliferation of equipment in one location, but given that the equipment is being reduced in size and its frequency is being increased, it should not be a problem. Any environment—rural or urban—would be tidied up if all the operators got together and agreed on where they wanted to site their equipment rather than spread it all around without due regard for the environment.
I will direct my questions primarily to the church representatives. If Douglas Murray wants to comment from the perspective of the community councils, he should feel free to do so.
There may be a slight misunderstanding. A pilot scheme is being run in conjunction with Historic Scotland. There is an ecclesiastical exemption on church buildings that are in use, whereby normal planning consent is not required for alterations. In the voluntary pilot scheme between the churches and Historic Scotland, the planning procedure is gone through although it is not necessarily binding; it is advisory. The pilot scheme is not specifically related to telecoms.
That is genuinely enlightening; I was not aware of that so thank you for the information.
The Scottish Churches Committee is an interface between the statutory bodies and the churches in Scotland. We list at the foot of our written submission the denominations that are represented on the Scottish Churches Committee. I can supply the committee with a copy of the constitution if it wishes. I also have a sheet that shows the involvement of those denominations with masts.
Thank you. I have that list.
Only three denominations are involved with masts. The Church of Scotland has approximately 2,500 buildings. As far as we know, 38 masts are involved and there are some applications in the pipeline. The Episcopal Church of Scotland has 300 buildings and it estimates that there are 12 masts, four of which have planning permission. The United Free Church of Scotland estimates that it has 70 buildings but no masts as yet. The remaining denominations do not appear to have masts.
What are the general financial benefits of having a mobile telephone mast mounted on or near a church?
All of the operators enter into agreements or leases with the owners of the buildings or grounds upon which they put their masts. An annual payment is agreed as part of that lease. I do not know the practices of the other denominations, but the Church of Scotland employs a firm of chartered surveyors, who are skilled in such matters, to negotiate annual payments for us with the companies concerned. The general trustees who own the buildings ultimately receive payments in respect of most of the buildings. However, in some instances local trustees own the buildings and the payment goes directly to them. The funds are available for all purposes, although they are primarily for maintaining the fabric of the buildings.
A church is not required to take a mast; it is entirely a matter for the local people. For example, someone who wishes to put up a mast might have had their application turned down out of hand because the minister did not want the mast as a result of his views. On other occasions, representations have been made and the mast has still not gone up. There is a broad range of final decisions. However, although it is easy to assume that money is a big factor, it is not the ultimate deciding factor.
What is the range of rents that are agreed between the operating companies and you, as trustees?
The rents vary—some base stations have been erected on churches for a while, but the range is roughly between £5,000 and £8,000 or £9,000 a year. The majority of rents tend to be in the middle of that range.
I know that the annual range of maintenance expenditure for the congregations of some faiths is many multiples of those sums, but in others the running costs are, perhaps, a lot lower. That must be quite useful annual income on which to be able to depend for routine maintenance.
I am sure that the treasurers think that.
I am a congregational treasurer, which perhaps brings us conveniently to another issue. My church is adjacent to two blocks of council flats that are about twice the height of our tower. There is a school playground about 50 yards in the other direction. To be frank, I would hope that if a mast were to be installed, it would go on the council flats, obviously because that is—ostensibly—much safer. However, if that were not possible and we were approached, I would not, on purely precautionary grounds, be in favour of the installation. However, I cannot prejudge the decision of my court. As treasurer, the fact that the congregation might get £7,000 or £8,000 a year—an amount that would, as has been suggested, be very handy—would not influence the decision. I suspect that we would turn down the application.
I am tempted to press you on a number of interesting issues about community use of churches and the dependence of communities on the facilities that the Church of Scotland provides. There are also issues about the relationship between stable rental income and community benefit. However, I will pass over those issues because we could get into all sorts of complicated byways.
As we said earlier, the decisions in both cases related to health concerns, which are not really covered under the new regulations. The decision about what consultation to have with the local community in which a church is located is left up to each congregation. After all, the building belongs to the congregation; it looks after the building and, in many instances, there is no contribution to—or attendance of—the church by the community. It is left up to the congregation to decide whether, notwithstanding that, it should consult the local community or simply consult the congregation.
My final question also relates to your written submission, which outlines the Church of Scotland's policy on the matter. Do other denominations that are represented on the Scottish Churches Committee have procedures in place and, if so, will you explain what they are?
I have little knowledge of the arrangements of the other denominations. I am aware of the Baptist position because I spoke to Mr Slack, who is the general secretary of the Baptist Union of Scotland, after an article about downloading of pornographic material appeared in the newspapers. He appeared to say that the Baptists do not give specific guidance on such installations to local congregations.
Mr Parker has dealt with my point that the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland delegates the issues to priests, who carry the procedures through, which means that there is no central record of how many churches have masts. As I understand the Catholic church, it is administered according to dioceses, which are under bishops, and each diocese may have different policies.
That draws the questions for the panel to a close. I thank Douglas Murray, Timothy Parker and Findlay Turner for their evidence.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We continue with the next group of questions. I welcome to the committee Graham U'ren, director of the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland, Nigel Hooper, the planning manager of East Dunbartonshire Council, and David Banford, the area planning manager from Dumfries and Galloway Council.
Good morning gentlemen. Since the introduction of the new regulations, has the mobile telephone industry improved its communication with local communities and local authorities regarding development?
The issue of the relationship between communities and development rather than the industry per se has been at the heart of many of my responses to the committee's questions. It is probably apparent from my submission that I think that that relationship has improved enormously, certainly in comparison to what it was like before the regulations were introduced. The relationship continues to improve. That has been the experience of East Dunbartonshire Council, but I cannot speak with the same level of clarity for other authorities. I believe that that relationship is in general continuing to improve across the board.
My experience is that since the legislation was introduced, dialogue with the industry has improved greatly. Council officers have been able to agree to all sorts of improvements to the schemes that the industry wanted to pursue. Dialogue with the community tends to operate through local authority staff and members rather than through the industry itself.
I will take the opportunity to make some general points. My answer to such a specific question is based more on second-hand information than are those of my colleagues who are directly involved.
Do you think that the level of consultation is adequate?
The difference between local authority or planning authority planning powers and the community's expectations are at the heart of the matter. There is a gulf that has to be filled by liaison between the community and the planning authorities or developers, who should be trying to reassure the community. However, I feel that the most sensitive communities are almost incredulous that planning authorities can approve telecommunications equipment in the face of significant local concerns.
I have a quick supplementary question. The issue is obviously quite important. You talked about the gulf between the community and what it expects from its local authority. There is also a gulf between what planning officials and councillors might expect. You can consider only direct planning issues, but councillors will be lobbied about wider concerns, especially health matters, and they might then go against the decisions of the directors. Perhaps that is not happening often.
That is correct. The issue runs to the heart of the difficulties that we—the community, planning authorities and developers—face jointly. You ask whether there are other ways of filling the gulf; I think that there are. I draw Bruce Crawford's attention to ways in which we have tried to do that through the East Dunbartonshire local plan. We acknowledge that the technology is still developing and that, even in the past two years, it has developed significantly—I gave examples in my written submission. The technology will continue to develop.
In effect, though, what you have done is implement the precautionary principle in its widest sense, not just in terms of direct health implications, but in terms of the health of the community as you see it. Let me take that a wee bit further: if you, as a local authority, are prepared to do that in respect of your properties, how would you feel about guidance coming from central Government—either through the NPPG system or through the planning advice note system—that said to local authorities that an exclusion zone around residential properties, schools, nurseries, hospitals, and so on would be a reasonable way to start to deal with some of the conflicts that exist and to bridge the gulf that exists?
What you are suggesting is not unreasonable in the light of what I have just said. We are talking about the health of the community and community attitudes, and your suggestion ties in with the emerging proposal for a power of community well-being for councils, which will consider the issues in the round. However, we should be clear that that would involve something additional to land use planning and assessment of pure environmental impact—it would have to be to do with perceptions and perceived impacts. Clearly, local authorities would implement the guidance that was given in Scottish Executive publications.
Does either of the other witnesses want to comment on the issues that Bruce Crawford has been pursuing?
The point was debated in considerable depth when the original working party was in session. The broad conclusion was that the community health issue would be best left with the licensing authority—a Government agency—rather than the local planning authority which, in all likelihood, would not have the resources to test an individual application for health effects. That was the conclusion of the industry, the officers who contributed to that working party and, in due course, the Executive.
This is one of the most difficult areas of the regime. The problem is that, at the moment, it can be established only by case law that an ungrounded fear may be a material consideration, and it becomes a consideration only as far as that fear is concerned. When it comes to the question of proof regarding whether the fear is founded, health is not a material consideration. In many respects, the guidance about adopting a precautionary principle—which cannot be backed up by specific guidance on how to deal with the issue itself—is making life more difficult for local authorities. I am not entirely sure whether it is a matter of reviewing the central guidance or whether it is a matter simply of waiting for a case to be decided finally one way or the other. However, the present situation is not helpful to anybody.
I think that the questions that were allocated to me have been answered.
I apologise, convener, for cutting across John Scott. I did not mean to do that. It just seemed like an appropriate stage to ask the question.
Although I have obtained some evidence to support what I said, I am not sure that I have particularly good answers to that question. Behind all is the need to consider not just development on the planning policy front and procedure front, but development of the relationship with the industry. On the point that we have just addressed, perhaps it would be easier to talk about buffer zones if the industry was prepared to co-operate, rather than rely on a planning policy. Equally, perhaps it would be easier to talk about a protocol with the industry because, in trying to achieve mast sharing, we are more dependent on it than on anything that planning policy can dictate.
In terms of the overall impact of masts on the community, the committee heard evidence earlier today and two weeks ago about the growth that there will be in the number of masts. Although local authorities cannot address health concerns, they can concern themselves with over-development, clutter, amenity and visual obtrusiveness. On over-development—by which I mean too many masts' being clustered in one area—there seems to be potential. Graham U'ren talked about persuasion, but is not there an opportunity for Government to give powers to local authorities so that when they receive applications they can enforce mast sharing, so that we can control some of the problems? Without strengthening local authority powers, all the persuading in the world will not convince some operators that they should—because of clutter, amenity, over-development or visual obtrusiveness—share masts.
I can only agree that a means of enforcing or persuading would be highly desirable. The problem is whether the planning system—how planning policy is drafted and how planning law operates—would allow us to ensure enforcement. I think that that would be difficult, which is why I tend to suggest co-operating with the industry as a whole to achieve the objectives. I do not know what my colleagues would say, but I think that legal enforcement would be difficult.
The table that I circulated to members illustrates the problems that we are facing. Of the 46 cases indicated, only nine involved mast sharing, despite the fact that we, as local government officers, tried to persuade applicants that they should be mast sharing. In our experience, mast sharing is the last item on operators' agendas. They do not like mast sharing because it involves more organisation and perhaps exposes them to a bit of horse trading with a competitor or a landowner.
If local authorities had planning guidelines that allowed them to refuse an application because an alternative solution existed, that would reduce the number of successful appeals and the number of appeals overall. Such guidelines could give local authorities the power to tell operators to do further work on an application.
If we can demonstrate that there is an appropriate alternative, that greatly strengthens the local authority's hand.
The power that we are talking about does not necessarily require changes to guidance or statute; it is already available through the requirements in the local plan policy under which mast sharing will be sought. If mast sharing is not feasible, that will require to be demonstrated. However, I concur with my colleague that it can sometimes be baffling to be presented with technical details, which can cause difficulties.
I appreciate Nigel Hooper's comments. That was essentially the point that I wanted to draw out. In discussion with the churches, it was acknowledged that the modern-day, next-generation masts might not be taller than 1ft and so would not be visually intrusive. One does not need a degree in radio communications to understand the separation distances required, but it seems likely that there will be less visual intrusion if antennas are placed on separate masts, rather than together. I agree that there is a case to be made for mast sharing where it is deemed suitable, but I believe that, if companies are forced to share masts, the visual intrusion could be greater. Do you agree with that premise?
I agree—that is the point that I have just made.
David Banford is obviously in favour of an increased burden of regulation on the telecommunications companies. Does he accept that more red tape and greater controls—as espoused by Bruce Crawford—would eliminate the companies' freedom of choice and their ability to come to their own agreements with communities and individuals?
I am not sure whether that was a question or a statement of John Scott's views, but I will allow David Banford to come back on it if he feels that he has been misrepresented in any way.
I was not promoting the idea of more regulation. My plea is for a bit more honesty on the part of the industry in the pursuit of objectives. Companies might sign up to the idea of mast sharing, but they are often reluctant to pursue it in practice, even if we think that there is an appropriate reason to do so. I fully accept Nigel Hooper's comments about advancing technology providing much neater ways in which to accommodate multiple aerials.
Why, then, do you make such a strong case for mast sharing?
In rural areas, the antennas tend to cover a bigger geographical area. In my area, for example, the industry tends to look for additional masts, whereas in urban settings there is often a different approach to the multiple network of cells. The geography of my area is different from that of urban areas and the industry responds in a different way. The applications that we get tend to be for ground-based masts rather than for other types. That may indicate why I have an interest in mast or site sharing. However, I accept that evolving technology will change the way in which planning authorities need to respond to the infrastructure. There is a geographical difference between rural and urban infrastructure. I am not pursuing more regulation as an end in itself.
My question is about redundant masts. There is a general issue of how the planning system may be used to ensure that when masts reach the end of their useful life they can be replaced. Technology moves on and changes in the style, size and type of masts have an impact. It is likely that some equipment that is functional at the moment will be redundant in a year or two.
The member raises an issue that is important locally. Some areas have experience of problems arising from what happened with Atlantic Telecom, but others do not. I draw a distinction between what happened with Atlantic Telecom and concerns about installations that have been developed under current planning powers. Where a planning consent is issued for the installation of equipment, but that equipment is not removed once it has become redundant, the planning authority can enforce its removal.
I would like to pursue that issue. What would happen if some of the equipment became dangerous as well as unsightly? Is there not an obligation on someone—even if it is only the landowner—to ensure that the equipment is safe?
The obligation is the same as exists for any structure or building and lies with the landowner. The local authority has responsibilities for community safety. If the land is not accessible and has a security fence around it—as is the case with most telecommunications masts—there is almost certainly no threat to the community.
It does not sound as though communities located near masts can hold out much hope for their removal.
We have had no difficulty at all with that in my authority.
Elaine Thomson spoke about redundant masts. A section 75 agreement or a similar mechanism, such as a bond, could be applied at the beginning of the process to ensure that there was a remedy for the community and local authority at the end of a mast's useful life, thus ensuring that there was no unsatisfactory residue. I do not know whether that could be done.
There is already provision for that in the planning advice note. If one applies a temporary permission for five or 10 years, for example, one can require the removal of the equipment at the end of that time. That is a fairly straightforward, tried-and-tested method. It simply requires that the company still exists and trades. That was the problem with Atlantic Telecom; the company no longer existed and there was nobody left to remove the equipment. If that problem has not arisen, the operator could be required under a planning condition to remove the equipment. Section 75 agreements are cumbersome beasts, so a planning condition would be the device of choice, as that method is tried and tested.
Would it make sense if an industry bond were introduced for the removal of redundant masts in the event of companies failing and no one else taking on the installations? That idea came to me only when we were discussing the matter.
That is fairly common practice in the minerals industry. There is long experience of mineral sites failing to be restored because the operator has gone into liquidation or no longer exists for some other reason. If a bond is placed prior to the commencement of the work, the local authority has access to those funds to restore the site, which the operators would otherwise have done themselves. We have not looked at that, so I am not sure how much money would be involved for each case. However, such a mechanism would be a safeguard against the operator ceasing trading or the equipment falling out of use. The local authority would then be able to access the bond and remove the installation.
As I understand it, under the Department of Trade and Industry's code, an operator's licence involves the requirement to remove the equipment when the licence expires or the equipment ceases to be used. There is already an in-built procedure, but that does not take care of cases such as Atlantic Telecom where there is no licensee left. That is why such situations arise.
The Mobile Operators Association raised with us three concerns in particular about the way in which local authorities implement the new regulations. The association highlighted inconsistencies in neighbour notification and pointed out that, when communities are not properly informed, the issue rebounds on the mobile operators rather than on the local authority. In addition, the association felt that the request for additional information over and above what is required by statute is inappropriate. It also felt that planning conditions were being used inappropriately. Are those concerns legitimate? What is being done to address them?
Unfortunately, inconsistency over neighbour notification is a problem that afflicts not only the telecommunications industry. The whole issue is somewhat thorny and a separate study on neighbour notification has been carried out recently. Without knowing the specific complaint from the operators, I can speak only in general terms. The fact that the neighbour notification legislation is quite convoluted leads to some differences in day-to-day interpretation not only for telecommunications applications but for all applications that might lead to a complaint from the public. If there is a problem with telecoms, it needs to be considered in that wider context. In rural areas, we tend to find that, as an individual mast will be outside any towns, there are no neighbours to notify in any event and the landowner is the only one who must be involved. The problem is variable and the size of the problem depends on where one is.
So the problem, if it exists, is not too widespread.
I might add that none of those concerns is unique to telecommunications developments. It is quite common for developers to raise such concerns. Where a developer chooses not to involve planning consultants in the development, there is often an issue about the relationship between planning staff and the developer and the extent to which they understand one another and understand what is reasonable. The planning advice note helpfully sets out model conditions, which can be very useful.
I concur with what has been said, particularly about neighbour notification being a wider issue. Of course, that is under review by the Executive in its consultation on "Getting Involved in Planning". We could probably anticipate a proposal for a changed regime. Although that might not solve all the problems, it would certainly get over some of the basic problems of people claiming that they should have been notified but were not, or of people being notified and going along to the planning office in the belief that the application has been submitted, only to find that it has not, or at least that it has not been fully validated and made available for inspection. We might get round some of those problems with a different regime. The issues should certainly be addressed in the wider context.
There are two further points on which I would like clarification. The first is about plans to roll out new services and about how local authorities have tried to improve engagement with the industry, in particular at a strategic level. You indicated that that was happening. Would you elaborate on that?
The issue of access to local authority-owned land and premises—whether you call the policy a moratorium or not—is difficult. As I understand it, local authorities that operate such a policy do so not through their planning powers but through their powers as landlord. Such a policy is not restricted to local authorities. In my council's area, a number of private landowners operate a similar policy, because they see masts as a potential cause of friction with the community.
It was on strategic issues to do with roll-out.
Engagement over roll-out is improving. The quality of roll-out submissions affords a significant opportunity to improve that engagement. The detail that is given in roll-out plans can sometimes be so limited as to be almost meaningless. Including large areas of towns or almost whole communities in search areas does not add a great deal.
In discussing with operators their forward planning intentions, apart from the need for adequate information, we come up against the issue of the resources that planning departments require to engage in a full discussion, which is extremely useful and important. With telecoms we are always coming up against issues to do with the planning system—not just the legal framework, but the way in which it is managed and resourced.
On roll-out plans, the evidence that Nigel Hooper gave us states that East Dunbartonshire has a
I noticed that in the evidence that was submitted and I admit that it mystified me a little, because it reflects neither the information that I receive from colleagues in other planning authorities nor the circumstances in East Dunbartonshire. The operators acknowledged that, if detailed discussions had already taken place between operators and planning authorities, they would not expect a request for a meeting.
It has been said often today that local authorities must interpret circulars and other documents to achieve their councils' policies. Engagement is the second commitment of the Mobile Operators Association's 10 commitments and it was dealt with in recommendations 6 and 7 of our report. Is it another matter on which the NPPG and the PAN need to be more explicit, so that mobile phone operators submit useful standardised plans to local authorities, to ensure that we all have the information that we need to make an informed decision?
All planning authorities would welcome some standardisation and improvement of roll-out plans. I am not in a position to say whether it is the role of Scottish Executive guidance or policy to do that. I said in my submission that the Mobile Operators Association might want to consider that role in improving its own housekeeping.
I draw questions to a close, because we are overrunning considerably and have numerous other items of business. We have not had the opportunity to ask a few questions that we wished to ask, so we propose to ask you to respond to some questions in writing. The clerks will be in touch with you to arrange that in due course. I thank Graham U'ren, Nigel Hooper and David Banford for their useful evidence.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Previous
Item in Private