ITEM
Report for Council - 28 March 2002
ITEM
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT : SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING
GUIDANCE
Report of the Chief Environment & Development Officer
Budget Book:
Statutory Powers:
Budgetary Implications:
Purpose of Report
1. To advise Members of the views of the Environment Policy Development Group, and to consider the implications of the Group’s conclusions.
Recommendation
That:
(a) Council does not accept the Environment Policy Panel’s suggestion of a 500m exclusion zone near to sensitive locations, but agrees the strategy of adopting a lower limit for electro magnetic radiation field strength in South Hams to that operated nationally (the ICNIRP standard).
(b) Council requests officers to invite the code operators to host a series of public meetings in the district that are designed to debate sensibly and openly the biological effects of low level EMF radiation.
Introduction
2. On 22 February, the Environment Policy Panel considered a report concerning supplementary planning guidance for telecommunications development. The report invited a response on a recommended strategy that proposed adoption of a lower limit for electro magnetic radiation field strength in South Hams to that operated nationally (the ICNIRP standard). The Panel were advised not to seek to impose buffer zones between masts and sensitive locations like schools, hospitals and housing because Government advice is very strongly that Local
Planning Authorities should not do so.
3.
Notwithstanding the officer’s advice, the Panel voted to recommend to Council that the recommendations in the report should not be accepted but that a 500m exclusion zone should be adopted where a mast may be near sensitive locations (see recommendations of minute
EPDG.15/01 elsewhere on this agenda).
Key Considerations
4. Telecommunications development raises public concerns throughout the country. Many
Local Planning Authorities are giving considerable weight to these fears and are refusing applications for prior approval and planning permission. Unsurprisingly, there is an increasing number of appeals where public health is the principal issue. In many of these,
Human Rights are also raised. Whereas there are a few decisions where appeals have been dismissed because of public concern, officers perceive that the greater number are upheld. In several recent decisions costs have also been awarded against Councils who have been unable to provide evidence of harm.
19

5.
The report to the Environment Policy Development Group and copies of recent appeal decisions are attached (the minutes of the PDG are found elsewhere on this agenda).
Members are requested to read these documents very carefully. Officers urge the Council not to dismiss the risk of costs lightly. Members sometimes see officers’ warnings about costs to be a form of ‘blackmail’ to make them take a decision which is in line with officer advice.
This is genuinely not the case. The costs regime was introduced by the Government to impose a sense of discipline for all parties in the appeal process. The Government accepts that it is quite acceptable for members to disregard officer advice. It is their democratic right to apply different weight to that given by their officers. However, members must be able to substantiate with clear and robust evidence any viewpoint they have expressed and if they cannot, then any decision may be seen to have been unreasonable. It is the officers’ duty to warn members of any adverse implications of their decisions.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Members’ attention is drawn in particular to the appeal decision against Guildford Borough
Council. This followed a three day public inquiry which seems to have involved an exhaustive appraisal of the issues and where the Council employed Dr Gerard Hyland as an expert witness. The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the Council because:

It had asked for a public inquiry whereas the appellants were content with the written representation procedure;
 The Council’s refusal reason was imprecise;

Insufficient account had been taken of Government advice and particular reference was

 made to the letter of June 2000 sent to all Council leaders;
There was no development plan policy which supported the refusal;
No evidence was provided by the Council to show why PPG8 was seen to be wrong;

The Council failed to take proper account of an earlier appeal decision at Fowey where
Dr Hyland’s evidence had been given, and;

The Councillors appeared to have been swayed by objections where there was no substantive evidence to support their view.
Officers understand Members’ annoyance at feeling unable to pay heed to community fears and being seemingly bludgeoned into accepting Government advice on the roll out of telecommunications apparatus. There is a sense of powerlessness being felt by Local
Planning Authorities but members should be wary of letting this frustration lead to decisions that could have costly consequences for the Council. It seems to be futile to introduce a 500m exclusion zone policy which will not survive the first test at appeal. Even the officers’ recommendation of a 3 V/m EMF field strength limit proposes an extra precautionary approach which would need to be justified, but at least it would provide a basis for dialogue with the code operators.
It seems to your officers that feelings within the community are so entrenched on the health issue that there is a total lack of confidence in expert opinion. The Government has failed to reassure the public that there is no serious health risk with mobile phone masts and the code operators have not engaged the community like they said they would in their 10 commitments. Both sides of the debate seem to believe they are right and each is being unable to see the validity of the other’s position.
There is sufficient evidence to show that there are biological effects from EMF radiation at levels below the point where the well-quantified heating effects occur. These effects may or may not prove to be harmful and certain people may be predisposed or especially sensitive.
In this sense, concern about EMF radiation is well founded. However, these biological effects seem to occur at radiation levels well above the actual levels recorded near existing masts. In this respect, the Government is justified in saying there is no likelihood of harm. Perhaps future research will explore the risk to health of this extremely low level of radiation. It will also show hopefully whether the cancer clusters near to masts that have been given so much
20

press attention are explained by mathematical probability, higher than permitted radiation levels, or the need to revise safety levels. Unfortunately, using the planning process and appeal system to debate the health issue merely results in confrontation between opposing views. There seems to be no serious attempt to devise a national strategy to demonstrate how the biological effects of low level radiation are being properly taken into account and how this is reflected in equipment design and revised safety limits. The Council has sought to facilitate this debate within the authority however it should be tackled at a national level. In attempting to responsibly mediate between the community and the telecommunications industry, there may be a more productive outcome than trying to impose restrictive exclusion zones, which based on experience of other appeals is likely to fail and result in cost awards against the Council.
Conclusions
10. Officers believe that adopting the recommendations of the Environment Policy Development
Group will result in future cost awards against the Council. The recommendation to adopt lower unit electro magnetic radiation field strength in South Hams to that established nationally will be difficult to achieve in the light of Government guidance, however, such an approach offers the opportunity for a debate about this significant issue with code operators, and demonstrators that the Council is seeking to address the concerns of local people.
S Munday
Development Control & Conservation Manager
A Robinson
Chief Environment & Development Officer
Council
28 March 2002
21