Loading document...
PPG8 advises that radiation safety issues and any relevant standards for exposure are a matter for the Health and Safety Executive as advised by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). Code system operators must comply with standards for radiation safety under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and associated regulations. They must demonstrate that exposure of employees and the public comply with NRPB exposure guidelines, which relate to the known thermal effects of Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMFs).
A draft Circular produced in December 1998 jointly by the DETR and the Department of Health Land Use Planning and Electromagnetic Fields stated that the NRPB consider there is no convincing evidence of a causal link between exposure to low level EMFs and cancer. The Circular advised that LPAs considering policies to set up a cordon sanitaire around telecommunications development should have regard to operators responsibilities under Health and Safety legislation and the NRPBs view that there is no link between exposure to EMFs and cancer.
A World Health Organisation (WHO) draft report attached to the Circular relates to an ongoing International EMF project at WHO, which is due to report in 2003. It agrees with the NRPB position but acknowledges that there may be social/political rather than scientific reasons to distance masts from schools. That "prudent avoidance" element is not however contained in the Circular. The validity of public perception of danger as a material consideration is accepted in the circular but the weight given to this must relate to the particular facts of the case.
In the light of this concern the Government asked the NRPB, to set up an Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, (IEGMP), chaired by Sir William Stewart. The report of the group (the Stewart Report) was published in May 2000. In respect of base stations the report concluded that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living or being near base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on well being in some cases. It acknowledges that biological effects may occur but considers these are very subtle and that there is as yet little evidence of harmful impact. The report states that the possibility of harm cannot be ruled out with confidence and that gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.
In its response to the Stewart Report the Government has indicated its acceptance of the precautionary approach. In respect of base stations this approach indicates that emissions should meet the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for public exposure. The IEGMP also recommended as a precautionary measure the establishment of clearly defined physical exclusion zones around base station antennas, which delineate areas within which exposure guidelines may be exceeded. The NRPB already sets clear "safety zones" of 1 to 2.5m around antennas themselves.
The Minister for Planning, in a letter to council leaders in June 2000, indicated the approach that should be taken in handling telecommunications applications. This is that if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP guidelines (as recommended by the IEGMP on a precautionary basis), it should not be necessary to consider the health effects further. Generally there are few cases dealing with this area but some of these are summarised below.
The High Court considered whether a council had fully taken into account the effect of the non-thermal effects of low frequency radio waves associated with a 30 m high radio tower for Mercury Communications. Mr Al Fayed had objected to the planning application and had submitted an article from the Radiological Protection Bulletin which concluded that more information was required on the effects of radio waves on human health. The report was based upon research undertaken by an EC expert group and the author of the report was a member of the National Radiological Protection Board. The local authority had contacted the HSE but had not forwarded a copy of the objection letter and report. The court found that the council was not bound to follow the guidance within paragraph 37 of PPG8 which stated that radiation safety is a matter for the HSE. Whilst the council's decision was flawed in that the committee would have assumed that the objection had been fully considered by the HSE, it was unrealistic to assume that the council would have come to a different solution. The unchallenged authoritative view was that there was no convincing evidence of a long term health hazard R V Tandridge D.C. & others ex parte Al Fayed 14/1/99.
The matter was considered in the Court of Appeal which held that the High Court had been correct in not quashing the decision because there would not have been a different outcome if the objection had been fully considered R V Tandridge D.C. & another ex parte Al Fayed 15/12/99.
A council sought to resist the erection of a 20 m. telecommunications mast in proximity to a primary school and elderly persons home. An inspector refused a request to issue a witness summons requiring attendance from a representative of the NRPB. The issue focused upon detailed research set out in WHO reports in addition to the conclusions of The Stewart Report. An inspector proceeded on the basis of whether permission should be refused on the basis of "prudent avoidance" based upon precautionary principles. The impact on human health particularly young children remained unclear but on balance the authority had not proven any demonstrable harm should the mast be erected. Whilst there appeared to be some risks, these fell within acceptable limits and there was no case for even prudent avoidance. It was not the role of the planning system to appraise safety which was a matter for the Department of Health as advised by the HSE and NRPB. Permission was granted but no costs were awarded to the appellant as the detailed evidence put forward had not been debated at such length at any other inquiry and the council had called an expert witness which had substantiated the reasons for refusal. (Restormel B.C. 23/6/00 DCS No.39171245).
This case then went to the High Court where consent was given to challenge this decision. It was argued that health concerns are a legitimate planning issue which should have been taken into account by the inspector. The inspector should also have taken into account of the Stewart Committee's report recommendation that "beams of the greatest intensity from base station antennas should not fall on any part of school building or its playing field without agreement of school and parents" R V SSER and Restormel B.C. exp Lindsay and Matthews 2/11/00.
A proposal involved the erection of a 25 m high telecommunications tower with 6 sectored aerials and four 0.6 m. dishes. The inspector noted that it would be sited in a parcel of land adjacent to a paddock and surrounding trees would provide significant screening. With regard to health considerations the government had accepted that the precautionary approach should be applied to telecommunications development following the Stewart report in May 2000. The government accepted that in relation to base stations electromagnetic emissions should meet international standards and clear safety zones of between 1 m and 2.5 m should be set around antennas themselves. In the instant
case the development proposed met these standards and until new guidelines were introduced, the precautionary principle did not justify refusing permission (Wyre B.C. 1/12/00 DCS No. 29699576).
The "perception of harm" is, of course, whether telecommunications masts emit electromagnetic radiation fields which could be harmful to those living and working nearby. In the Waverley case (see 28.132), an inspector felt that the effect of the proposed development on public health was not a reason for refusal and that the concerns of residents, whilst sincerely held, did not justify a refusal. However, the Thurrock decision (see below) saw an inspector note that a mast complied with current official guidelines but felt that this did not mean, necessarily, that objections on health grounds were unjustified. He found there was real public concern expressed by those living and working in the vicinity, and it seemed to him quite understandable and reasonable, if misplaced objectively, that this concern was a valid planning objection to be weighed along with the other factors. In his balancing exercise the inspector recognised that public opinion certainly could not be the arbiter of a planning application, but considered that the two masts proposed would represent a constant reminder of the nearest resident's concerns materially diminishing their quality of life. In the absence of a strong need case the inspector dismissed the appeals. This decision was challenged in the High Court in September 2001 where the S.O.S. submitted to judgement.
Certainly, the inspectors decision was a rare one, and in the telecommunications field there are very few examples of dismissed appeals where the determining factor was "perception of risk". Another one was the Harrow case (see below), however, in this case the issue was lack of information about health effects, rather than distrust of evidence that there would be no adverse effects. In relation to other types of development the issue has been raised several times before, and indeed has reached the courts, most notably in Newport Borough Council v Secretary of State for Wales 18/6/1997. Here the Court of Appeal judged, in relation to a chemical waste treatment plant proposal, that perceived fears, even if not objectively justified, were a planning factor which could be a good reason for the refusal of a planning application, albeit rarely. The court stated that an inspector should have accepted that perceived fears, even if they were not soundly based on scientific or logical fact, were relevant.
The view may be taken from all this that a planning system which allows for the weight to be given to the anxieties of the members of the public, whether based on distrust of scientific advice or other expert evidence, or simple gut feeling antipathy to a particular use, at least shows consideration for the human condition. On the other hand it may be argued that planning decisions should not be based on ignorance or prejudice, and that to allow for such matters is to pervert development control processes that should be based on a cool assessment of the sustainable facts of each case. Maybe, in adopting the "precautionary principle" in most contemporary decision making, we are as near as we will ever be to reconciling these two positions.
The following cases discuss local residents' fears as to potential health hazards.
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 Cellnet 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 Celinet Ltd sought permission for a replacement 15m 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.43635706).
Replacement telecommunications pole would not harm amenity through perceived health risks
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.
In (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
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown