Campaigns

Become a Golden Supporter

December 2003, updated June 2004

Objecting to Planning Applications for Telecomms Masts

The best chance you have of stopping a telecomms mast going up near you is to nip it in the bud at the planning stage. Birmingham City Council publishes a weekly list of all the registered planning applications that come in to the Planning Department. You can obtain a copy of the list by calling 0121 303 3157. To view specific applications visit the Planning Department at Alpha Tower, Suffolk Street Queensway.

Birmingham City Council considered telecomms masts in its draft Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and produced its own draft Supplementary Planning Guidance for the installation of mobile 'phone masts. [1] The then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) published its amendments to Planning Policy Guidance Notes 8 (PPG8), which covers telecommunications, in 2001. [2]

Planning applications for masts may be refused on the grounds of potential adverse effects on the visual amenity of the area, or because they would be sited in residential areas, on school or hospital grounds, on listed buildings, in the greenbelt or in conservation areas. In these cases Birmingham City Council has acted according to their own draft Supplementary Planning Guidance, which disallows telecommunications equipment in ‘sensitive areas’.

On the downside, the City Council approves many applications, some of which are deemed not even to have needed prior approval. PPG8 retains the prior approval system for masts of 15m and under and only extends the time for local authorities to deal with applications to 56 days. In other words, masts below 15m do not, unlike virtually any other development, require planning permission. Instead, they are "permitted developments", which means that the local authority only needs to be notified before the mast can go up.

The best action you can take in this instance to ask your MP to find out why the Government has not implemented the recommendation of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (Stewart) Report Section 1.36:

"We recommend that for all base stations, including those with masts under 15m, permitted development rights for their erection be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the formal planning process."

The Government has acknowledged that there are health concerns over telecommunications installations, but does not give local authorities the power to act on them. So, we would advise anybody fighting mast applications to concentrate on issues of siting and appearance (but that doesn't mean to say that the health issues aren't important or shouldn't be mentioned in your objection).

Factors relating to the siting and appearance can include:

• the height of the site in relation to surrounding land;
• the existence of topographical features and natural vegetation;
• the effect on the skyline or horizon;
• the site when observed from any side, including from outside the authority's own area;
• the site in relation to areas designated locally for their scenic or conservation value;
• the site in relation to existing masts, structures or buildings, including buildings of a historical or traditional character; and
• the site in relation to residential properties.

Excellent advise on how to fight masts can be found on the Dunton No-Masts Campaign website www.ism-ltd.freeserve.co.uk/dnmc/

Written objections to a planning application

In order to officially object to an application you must send individual letters like the one below to the Planning Department. Petitions, no matter how many signatures you get, carry no weight at this stage.

Chief Planning Officer
Dept of Planning and Architecture
PO Box 28
Alpha Tower
Suffolk Street Queensway
Birmingham
B1 1TU

Application number: All planning applications have a refence number. Phone the Planning Dept on 0121 303 3157 for details. If you do not know the reference number, refer to the proposed location and the Dept. should be able to find the details for you.
Location: Where the mast will be sited.
Description: For example, "Erection of 18m high telecommunication mast and ancillary equipment cabin."

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to object to the above application on the following grounds.

There are many issues concerning telecommunications masts, including thermal and possible non-thermal effects of radiation, both from individual masts and possibly from the cumulative effect of clusters of masts in one area, visual amenity, and proximity to schools, hospitals and residential areas.

I appreciate that Birmingham City Council has, in its draft planning guidance, identified 'sensitive locations' such as residential areas, hospital and school grounds, open space, conservation areas and greenbelt sites and transport corridors (Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance Para 2.2.1) but it would be irresponsible to allow applications for telecommunications equipment in these sensitive areas through the planning process, even in so-called 'exceptional circumstances'.

I urge Birmingham City Council to follow the lead of Kent County Council and several others who, irrespective of conclusions drawn by national planning guidance, have taken the decision to ban all new mast applications on their property until legislation recommended by the Stewart report is brought into effect.

The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (Stewart) Report acknowledges that more research is needed into of the possible health effects of radiation from masts and recommends that comprehensive databases of the positions and emission levels of all telecommunications masts are made available to the public. It supports mast sharing whenever possible along with frequent, independent auditing of masts on a random basis. Birmingham City Council has so far failed to provide a map of the City's telecommunications' installations. The Government also strongly encourages telecommunications operators and local planning authorities to carry out annual discussions about rollout plans for each area (PPG8, Section 8). We urge the Council to make public the outcomes of these rollout plans.

I would further like to draw your attention to Planning Policy Guidance 8 and ask you to ask the Government why a key recommendation of the Stewart Report (Section 1.36) has not been implemented:

"We recommend that for all base stations, including those with masts under 15m, permitted development rights for their erection be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the formal planning process."

This special provision granted to mobile network operators will mean that legitimate objections by people who live and work near masts will not be properly heard as they are not consulted on application for masts under 15 metres. I urge the Council to make provisions for public consultation in cases of prior approval notifications.

Writing to your MP

Suggested text:

Your MP [to find your MP see constituency locata www.locata.co.uk/commons ]
House of Commons
Westminster
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear ___________________ MP

I am concerned about the impact PPG8 (Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications) will have on local communities and their ability to participate in the local planning process, especially in the light of the fact that Birmingham City Council estimates the number of telecommunication masts required to achieve sufficient coverage in B’ham to be around 1600!

I am concerned that PPG 8 retains the prior approval system for masts of 15m and under and only extends the time for local authorities to deal with applications to 56 days. In other words, masts below 15m do not, unlike virtually any other development, require planning permission. Instead, they are "permitted developments" which means that the local authority only needs to be notified and then the mast can go up. I would like you to find out from the Government why the recommendation of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (Stewart) Report (Section 1.36) has not been implemented in PPG8:

I am also worried, along with Debra Shipley MP for Stourbridge, who tabled a Ten Minute Bill in parliament, to control the siting of telecommunications masts, that this special provision granted to mobile network operators will mean that legitimate objections by people who live and work near masts will not be properly heard (no consultation for masts under 15m, timescale for planning permission still too short).

However, at last the government has acknowledged that there are health concerns over telecommunications’ installations, but still do not give local authorities the means to act on them (PPG 8 sections 29 and 30):

Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval.

In conclusion I would like to know why PPG8 does not implement recommendations made with regard to planning applications as well as not encouraging the implementation of the cautionary principle advocated by the Stewart report.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Notes

[1] Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Installation of Mobile Phone Telecommunications’ Equipment, Birmingham City Council 2nd November 2000.

[2] Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 22nd August 2001.