Telecom Planning Precedents

tor held that the anxiety about health effects materially contributed to the general loss of amenity and whilst meeting a need for better radio coverage was important, it did not override this concern nor the visual harm to the surroundings. Permission was refused (Harrow 2/2/01 DCS No.34037587).

One2One Personal Communications Ltd was refused permission to erect a 12.5 m high monopole mast with transmission dish in Leeds because its location would heighten the health concerns of local residents. An inspector concluded that the most important point was not the effect on the street scene but the visual significance of the site relative to nearby houses. Although there was no basis for withholding permission on the grounds of injury to health, it was held that its siting meant that residents would view it every day and this would have a fundamental effect on their perception of the environment. The introduction of commercial development would run counter to the advice in PPG3 which required that the quality of residential areas should be protected and therefore its siting was unacceptable (Leeds 20/7/01 DCS No.39879043).

BT Celinet Ltd proposed to install a rooftop radio base station for a tri-pod antennae covered by shrouding and to be sited on the roof of a six storey office block in the Brixton conservation area. In assessing the issue relating to the public perception of a potential risk to health from the installation, the inspector noted the concern of residents and while considering that this was not based on scientific fact she acknowledged that perception of harm could be a material consideration. She referred to paragraph 98 of PPG8, which stated that it remained the Government's responsibility to decide what measures were necessary to protect public health. Although the radiation emitted by the installation would be well below recommended guidelines, she accepted that for residents overlooking the installation there would be adverse visual impact and stated that "their daily observation of it could heighten their sensitivity about potential risk to health, especially if that was already aggravated by concerns about pollution from the A23." She added that this factor could reduce the perception of the quality of the environment in which residents lived, which was at odds with the importance placed in PPG3 on good quality design in order to create high quality living environments as it would it would clutter the roofscape harming architectural integrity and the street scene. The inspector concluded that the lack of overwhelming technical or operational need and her findings on the two main objections, justified the decision to dismiss the appeal (Lambeth 25/6/02 DCS No.46832990).

Antennae rejected due to perceived health risk Fears do not justify refusal

An 11.5 metre telecommunications pole was proposed for Orange Personal Communications Ltd for which "prior approval" was sought. An examined the concerns of local residents about possible health effects, and noted that the courts had held that any genuine perception of danger was a valid planning consideration. However, the inspector took the view that there were no representations that the appeal proposal would break the current National Radiological Protection Board guidance, and therefore there was no justification for rejecting the proposal on health grounds. The appeal was allowed (Harrow 9/2/01 DCS No.30611318).

A scheme involved 22.5 m telecommunications tower in an agricultural field approximately 330 m distant from the nearest housing. The council had refused permission on the grounds that it would pose a health risk to local residents and against officer recommendation. The reporter noted that public concern in the instant case amounted to two letters of objection and these were of a general nature. This was not at such a level which required invoking the pre-cautionary principle as advanced by the council particularly since the Radiocommunications Agency raised no objection to the proposal and it would operate within national and international guidelines. In allowing the appeal the reporter concluded that no reasonable council should have placed such weight on the fears expressed in two letters of objection such as to outweigh other land use considerations. The decision had been unreasonable and the appellant had been put to unnecessary expense (North Lanarkshire 27/2/01 DCS No.37766826).

Orange PCS Ltd secured permission for an eight metre telecommunications pole with three directional antennae in Wokingham, receiving a partial award of costs related to non-substantiation of health objections. The council stated that it adopted a more relaxed approach to telecommunications development in the countryside in order to avoid the siting of masts within 60 m of residential properties. It argued that it would have a harmful visual impact being prominent in the street scene and local opposition justified rejection due to the fear of adverse health effects. An inspector noted that the scheme complied with the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and consequently it was unnecessary for the local planning authority to consider further the health effects. The council had based one of its objections on the strength of local opposition and it had been unable to substantiate its concerns. In seeking to impose a 60 m guideline, the council had implemented its own precautionary principle which was contrary to national advice. (Wokingham 6/12/01 DCS No.34510022).

Medlock Communications Ltd secured permission for the erection of a 15m high lattice tower in a village outside Stroud in Gloucestershire. The scheme formed part of the TETRA system (see 28.121). The council had refused permission partly on the grounds that it posed a risk to human health. In assessing these matters, an inspector noted that in accordance with the judgment in Newport County Borough Council v Secretary of State for Wales & Browning Ferris Environmental Services [1997], a perceived concern about safety was a material consideration which must be taken into account. Moreover such concerns did not have to be objectively justified, the inspector noted from the court judgment. It was acknowledged that the Stewart Report on mobile phones, concluded that there was no general risk to the health of people living near bases stations. However it did advise that a precautionary approach should be adopted until more detailed evidence had become available. The technical evidence in respect of the appeal proposal indicated that exposure to radio frequency radiation would be

around 0.2 per cent of international guidelines and consequently there would be no risk to the health of local residents. The inspector awarded a full set of costs to the appellant, concluding that the council had ignored the advice of its officers. It had ignored national advice on the perceived health effects and had produced no convincing evidence justifying trying to impose a blanket ban on TETRA masts (Stroud 10/4/02 DCS No.49057948). -Three telecommunications companies lodged appeals relating to the erection of masts intended to serve the TETRA system in Gloucestershire. The proposals were strongly opposed by a residents group on health grounds. The council, in the light of the previous appeal decision concluded that it could not sustain its opposition on health risk grounds and offered no evidence at the inquiry. The inspector accepted that perceived health risks were a material consideration but the risks expressed were based upon selective research. He held that greater weight should be attached to the professional views of national and international organisations which had examined the effects. The suggestion that TETRA base stations would operate at higher power levels and pose a greater risk was not supported by the technical evidence. Moreover, concerns about emissions from mobile handsets should not be equated with emissions from base stations. They had had the opportunity of taking part in a 'fair trial' of the evidence. Full costs were again awarded to the appellants due to the councils unreasonable attempt to impose a blanket restriction on TETRA masts (Stroud 31/5/02 DCS No. 41218978).

TETRA masts allowed in Gloucestershire with costs awarded to appellants -BT Cellnet Ltd sought permission for a replacement 15 m high pole in the Dudley green belt. In accepting that a perceived fear of the health risks could affect the amenity of the area even when not based upon scientific fact, an inspector judged that the pole would resemble a conventional lighting column and would be seen against a pleasant landscaped setting of a local football club. These considerations would reduce the impact of the development, she concluded and would do little to stimulate fear whether rational or otherwise among local residents. In respect of the proximity of the mast to a primary school, she accepted that the electromagnetic emissions would be well below international guidelines and consequently pose no health risk to the children (Dudley 30/7/02 DCS No.43635708).

Replacement telecommunications pole would not harm amenity through perceived health risks

Interference

Advice on interference is given in PPG8 at paras. 102-104 of that guidance. Here it is stated that interference from transmitting structures will only be a planning issue when no practical remedy is available, such as the powers given to the Radiocommunications Agency by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. The situation where buildings are to be erected which would interfere with existing telecommunications is also dealt with in the guidance. Controls over interference are also available to the DTI under the terms of an operating licence. The following cases are of interest. -A development involved the erection of a 15 m high tree type mast. Concerns were raised by residents regarding radio interference and radio emissions. An inspector noted the Radiocommunications Agency had statutory powers to deal with radio and television interference under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. There was no evidence to indicate that the proposal would cause interference of an electrical or physical nature (Wolverhampton M.B.C. 22/7/98). -A 45 m . mast including 14 antennae and dishes was proposed outside Aberdeen. An existing mast would be removed and mast sharing would result in accordance with national guidance. A reporter noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the mast would interfere with the health and safety of residents. The radio field strength was within European guidelines. There was some evidence that interference was caused by the existing mast particularly to radio 4 broadcasts. However radio transmissions were not proposed to be made from the masts and other controls existed to deal with the matter (Aberdeen City Council 19/7/99) -A technical objection related to a new 35 m tower, located at a BBC transmitting station, obstructing signals from antennae below the 35 m level on an existing adjacent mast. An inspector considered that this obstruction is a form of interference with communications which would be very difficult to resolve, as envisaged in para. 13 of PPG8. However, as the BBC stated that it would be possible for the existing antennae to be relocated at the $38-45 \mathrm{~m}$ level on the existing mast, it was concluded that a practical remedy existed in this situation. As problems of access for maintenance could be resolved by proper management, the appeal was allowed (Swansea City Council 26/10/89). lin (Luton B.C. 9/4/02 DCS No. 35174466 ) permission was sought to install one antenna at an existing mast. Local people had reported a number of problems with radio reception and with the operation of electronic equipment. These