Mobile Phone Masts Review - Prosperity Policy Panel

Prosperity Policy Panel

Report of:  The  Mobile  Phone  Masts  Task  and

Finish Group

Date:  14th June 2006

Open

Mobile Phone Masts Review

1. Introduction

1.1  These are the findings of the Mobile Phone Masts Task and Finish Group,  which  was  established  by  the  Environment  and  Economic Regeneration Policy and Scrutiny Panel to consider:

Health Issues related to mobile phone masts.

Public views on mobile phone use and phone masts. Planning regulations and appeals.

Current policies regarding masts on Council owned land.

2. Background to the Review

1. At the Panel's meeting on 21st July 2005, the Panel discussed the issue of mobile phone masts and equipment as being a subject of great importance to  the  general  public. Concerns  over  mobile  phones  continue  to  be expressed at a local and national level, with frequent coverage in the media. The existence of conflicting findings from research into links between health and masts has resulted in a perceived health risk. On this basis, Members agreed to undertake a review into Mobile Phone Masts within the District.
2. The Panel accordingly appointed a Task and Finish Group to research current available information concerning mobile phone masts and to make appropriate recommendations to a future meeting of the Panel.
3. The  Task  and  Finish  Group  comprised  Councillors  Mrs  F  M  Oborski (Chairman), A J Buckley, Mrs J Fairbrother-Millis, Miss S C Meekings, C D Nicholls and Mrs J L Salter. There were also two members of the public on the Group: a practising GP and a member of the public with an interest in the Planning aspects of the review.

4. The Group met to consider evidence for first time on 28th September 2005 and a further three times on 7th November 2005, 2nd February 2006 and 13th April 2006.
5. During  its  review,  the  Group  utilised  a  range  of  evidence  gathering techniques to consider the key issues, including the following:

A question and answer session with the Council Liaison Manager from

the Mobile Operators' Association (MOA) and representatives from the following companies: '3', 'O2', 'T-Mobile' and Vodafone.

A question and answer session with Dr Michael Clark, a scientist from

the Health Protection Agency (HPA) Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Radiation Protection Division (formerly the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), who had been invited to answer questions on specific health matters.

Background  information  from  the  Internet,  including  summaries  of

recent reports on mobile phones and health.

District Council Officers' written and oral contributions.

A Mobile Phone Survey published in the Shuttle/Times and News on

Thursday 1st December 2005 (with a closing date of 16th December 2005).

A Young People's Mobile Phone Survey which was distributed to First

School and High School students within the District (with a closing date 10th March 2006).

The  Group  also  looked  at  the  practices  of  other  local  authorities,

including Birmingham City Council and Coventry City Council.

6. Details of the written submissions and associated papers are listed in section 7 of this report.

3. Background to Mobile Phones

1. Introduction

Mobile  phones  have  been  widely  available  since  the  mid-1980s.  The widespread  use  of  mobile  phones  is  acknowledged  as  a  recent phenomenon and there are around 60 million mobile phone subscribers in the UK. Their use has escalated over the past decade and to many they are  now  an  essential  part  of  business,  commerce  and  society. It  is anticipated that the use of mobile phones and related technologies will continue  to  increase  for  the  foreseeable  future,  as  customer  demand dictates the number and location of base stations. With it grows the need

to offer a service to all mobile phone users and build more of the base stations that enable mobiles to work.

2. What are mobile phones?

Mobile phones are low powered radio sets. They use radio waves in the same way that many other telecommunication devices use them, including televisions and radios used by emergency services, e.g the army and the police.

3. Mobile Phone Networks

Mobile phone networks are cellular networks. Radio base stations receive and transmit low level emissions. Each antenna of a base station covers a cell, which is a restricted geographic area of the country. Each base station can support only a limited number of users.

Customer  demand  dictates  the  number  and  location  of  base  stations. Thus the size of the cell depends on current and future customer call usage in the area, and also on the physical terrain of the area. Obstacles such as buildings, trees and hills can affect radio signals and have to be taken into account during the cellular engineering of the network. Without a network of base stations, mobile phones will not work.

4. Need for continuing Development

The current technology for the operation of mobile phone masts is known as "2nd Generation" (2G' or 'GSM') and the supporting infrastructure is

largely in place to accommodate this.

The new generation of mobile communications systems, which includes access to the internet and video conferencing, is known as '3rd Generation'

('3G') and the new 3G networks will  potentially need additional masts because they provide more advanced services.

5. TETRAs (Terrestrial Trunked Radio)

TETRA stands for 'Terrestrial Trunked Radio'. This is a digital mobile radio standard  especially  designed  for  professional  users  who  need  high reliability  and  security  and  which  also  requires  a  mast  infrastructure. TETRA networks are cellular and very similar to mobile phone networks. TETRA systems are used by emergency services in a number of countries and also by commercial organisations  with mobile workforces or large vehicle fleets. Handsets are generally placed adjacent to the body, in particular the vicinity of the waist or chest.

4. The Review

1. The Mobile Phone Operators

1. Five mobile phone operators in the UK are currently licensed to deliver the networks – Orange, Vodafone, 3, T-Mobile and O2 and they, in turn, are represented  by  the  Mobile  Operators'  Association  (MOA). (A  sixth operator, O2 Airwave Service, delivers the TETRA network).
2. The MOA acts as an interface between the mobile phone operators and local planners, elected members, resident groups, amenity bodies and the public, and represents the operators in public debate on relevant issues.
3. The MOA introduced its "10 Best Practice Commitments", in August 2001. This voluntary code' was used to ensure transparency in building mobile phone  networks,  to  provide  more  information  to  the  public  and  local planners, and to boost the community's role in the siting of radio base stations. There has been a review of the use of the Code as a result of which  certain  recommendations  have  been  made  by  the  University  of Reading, and are up to the ODPM (now the Department of Communities and Local Government).
4. The latest rollout plans of the five mobile phone operators, as published in October 2005, were requested and subsequently distributed to Members of the Task and Finish Group to form part of the scrutiny review. It was noted that the Plan was only updated on a yearly basis and 'new' sites identified during the year were not included. They did, however, give information relating to which parts of the district the operators are focusing on to fulfil their coverage requirements.

The plans indicated those sites:

- which are already built and operational;

- which have received planning consent and are soon to be operational;

- which are proposed and current full planning or notification applications are awaiting determination;

- which are proposed and a planning application has been refused;

- which are proposed and a planning application has been refused and has proceeded to planning appeal;

- which are proposed and may or may not result in the submission of a planning or notification application.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet

1. Council  ask  the  Mobile  Operators'  Association  to  request  the Mobile Phone Operators to update the Rollout Plan on a quarterly basis.

2. An  annual  Presentation  from  representatives  of  the  Mobile Operators'  Association  be  invited  to  the  Prosperity  Panel  to coincide with the production of the Rollout Plan.

2. Site Sharing and Local Planning Authority issues

1. Members were advised that there were two broad procedures currently in place at this Council relating to planning applications currently in place: prior notification, which related to masts fifteen metres or under in height and full application for those masts over fifteen metres in height.
2. Near neighbours within 50 to 100 metres of the potential site were notified of any pending applications. In rural areas those residents within 250 metres of the proposed site were notified.
3. Indications were that the height of phone masts invariably need to increase by five metres where operators need to share masts.
4. This Council has not, to date, had any costs awarded against it as a result of  appeals  against  decisions  to  refuse  applications  as  most  have proceeded by way of written representations where no costs award is made. However, as the appellant has the right to indicate a preferred method of appeal, there is the possibility of a costs award where, inter alia, the Council is considered to have acted unreasonably in either one or all reasons for refusal.
5. When considering whether to refuse Mast applications, there must be valid planning grounds for doing so, such as where there are concerns over visual impact, but each application has to be treated on an individual basis.
6. There is currently no policy for siting masts on Council owned land. The risk of introducing a policy prohibiting masts is that Mobile Phone Mast Companies might be forced to select more sensitive sites instead, which is something the Members have to consider.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet

1. No action be taken at this time to prevent Wyre Forest District Council  owned  property  being  available  to  mobile  phone network operators. However, any request be subject to the agreement  of  the  majority  of  Members  within  the  relevant Ward , before it is approved by the Council (this does not apply to  applications  or  notifications  to  the  Council  as  Local Planning Authority).
2. That mobile phone operators be encouraged to share masts on Council owned land, when appropriate and wherever possible.

7. The perceived risk and fear arising out of health concerns would be helped by adopting consultation methods aimed at involving elected members as well as members of the public.

8. Evidence suggests that around two-thirds of base station sites in the UK are either shared or placed on existing buildings or structures. Site sharing is the most cost-effective option for operators, and remains a priority with operators. However  this  is  not  always  technically  feasible  or environmentally desirable. The Local Planning Authority may prefer a number of smaller masts. Also, a mast carrying antennas for more than one operator is usually taller and more substantial than a mast for a single operator.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet

The  Council  maintain  an  up-to-date  list  of  all  approved  base stations/masts,  which  should  be  readily  available  for  public inspection, to assist both the public and operators considering site sharing opportunities.

9. Some antennae are hidden behind street signs, shop fronts etc. These tiny radio base station antennae help operators meet high customer demand in busy areas. They are usually mounted at street level on external walls, lamp posts or neon shop signs and can often be disguised as building features. They have lower radio wave outputs than larger base stations.
10. Where possible, operators advise that they try to prevent phone masts from harming the landscape. Slimline versions with smaller head frames are  being  introduced.  They  can  be  painted  to  blend  in  with  their surroundings, disguised as trees or placed on street lamps. Base station antennas  can  also  be  put  on  structures  like  roof  tops,  high  voltage electricity pylons or large radio communication masts.
11. Operators have confirmed that in planning the development of the network it is important that Local Planning Authorities play a key role. In particular, they need to be aware that the restriction of site choice can result in operators  having  to  progress  less  suitable  sites  in  terms  of  planning, environmental impact and community terms.

3. Mobile Phone Survey

1. The first Mobile Phone Survey was published in the Shuttle Times and News  and  encouraged  local  residents  to  have  a  direct  input  into  the research, the analysis of which would form part of the Panel's final report. 50  completed  questionnaires  were  received  and  a  briefing  note  was reported back to the main Panel at its meetings on 11th January 2006, which gave a detailed analysis of the survey.
2. The majority of respondents had lived in the Wyre Forest district for 20 years  or  more  (76%),  with  66%  of  those  people  currently  living  in Kidderminster  and  the  remainder  evenly  split  between  Stourport-on- Severn, Bewdley and rural parishes.
3. 52%  of  respondents  were  employed,  42%  retired  and  the  remainder responsible for looking after the home/dependants.
4. 84% of respondents confirmed that they had a mobile phone.
5. 66% of respondents said that they used their phones mainly for personal calls, but only used them for up to 1 minute at a time.
6. Only 16% of people who responded did not own a mobile phone. These respondents were all over 55 years of age and were generally retired and had lived in the District for 20 years or more. The main reasons they gave for not having a mobile phone were that they did not need one and also that they had health concerns.
7. Health concerns were also the main reason people gave for objections to mobile phone masts, where 42% of respondents stated health reasons; 21%  visual  reasons;  22%  de-valuation  of  property  and  15%  property saleability.
8. Regarding the location of mobile phone masts, 52% of respondents were aware of where the nearest phone mast was to their home. 88% of respondents said they would object to a phone mast application within 500 metres of their property and 500 metres from a school.
9. Only 12% of respondents had mobile phones which used 3G technology. The remaining 72% had a 2G mobile phone, of which three-quarters of the respondents used mainly for making calls, with the remainder texting.
10. Of the 18% who responded who had children under the age of 18 years, 6% of those children were under the age of 10 and were not given the use of a mobile phone, and 12% were aged 11 or upwards and all had the use of a mobile phone.

4. Children's Mobile Phone Survey

1. The Task and Finish Group was also keen to involve young people in the review, and on this basis organised a survey to assess the impact the mobile phone industry was having on children of school age.
2. A Questionnaire was issued to local First, Middle and High Schools in the Districts, to include a breakdown of their ages and what they used their mobile phones for.
3. In total, 569 responses were received for the survey of school children, with a breakdown from the relevant schools as follows:

First School: 175 responses. Middle School: 14 responses. High School: 380 responses.

4. The average age of the children who responded was 12 years old and out of the 569 replies received, 78% owned a mobile phone. The children were, on average, 10 years old when they had their first mobile phone.
5. The results from the Young People's Mobile Phone Survey are attached in tabled format at Appendix 2 to the report.

5. Dr  Michael  Clark  -  National  Radiological  Protection  Board(NRPB)

1. As the Mobile Phone Operators had no specific expertise in Health matters the Group invited Dr Mike Clark, Head of Press and Information Group, National Radiological Protection Board, to attend an open meeting. Dr Clark explained that the NRPB undertakes research to advance knowledge about protection from the risks of mobile phone masts; provides laboratory and technical services; runs training courses; provides expert information and has a significant advisory role in the UK.
2. Dr  Clark  answered  questions  specifically  relating  to  health  issues  and mobile phones which were previously reported to the Group, and also discussed the following points.

1. The Stewart Report

In May 2000, an independent expert group chaired by Sir William Stewart  wrote  a  report  on  mobile  phone  technologies,  which concluded that the balance of evidence to date did not suggest that these technologies caused adverse health effects.

The report did, however, recognise that there were gaps in current knowledge and that there may be biological effects as a result of exposures  below  guidelines,  and  called  for  a  precautionary approach to be adopted.

2. The Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)

ICNIRP (the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) is an international independent scientific organisation that  provides  guidance  and  advice  on  the  health  hazards  of radiation exposure. Its guidelines are endorsed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). ICNIRP's aim is to bring together independent experts to provide advice.

The ICNIRP guidelines are based on an analysis of all relevant scientific literature, and has been fully adopted by the UK's five mobile phone network operators. The guidelines have been put in place to protect the public.

Although the balance of evidence from research suggests that phone  masts  pose  no  health  risk  to  the  general  population, international health and safety guidelines have been put in place by ICNIRP to limit public exposure to radio waves from base stations and mobile phones.

The ICNIRP Certificate is issued based on the design of the base station. The base station is designed so that those members of the public within close proximity of the station are not exposed to levels above what the guidelines recommend.

3. The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)

The  National  Radiological  Protection  Board  (NRPB)  is  the  body responsible  for  advising  on  Electromagnetic  Fields  (EMFs). Internationally, (ICNIRP performs a similar role). Both bodies come to very similar conclusions about acceptable exposure levels.

4. The Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (AGNIR) Report

In  December  2003,  the  National  Radiological  Protection  Board (NRPB's) Independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) published a report. It concluded that

"The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposures to RF (radiofrequency) fields below guideline levels "

"Exposure levels from living near to mobile phone base stations are extremely  low,  and  the  overall  evidence  indicates  that  they  are unlikely to pose a risk to health."

6. Health Issues

1. During the review, Members became increasingly concerned about the potential health problems that can be reportedly related to digital mobile phone  use,  although  acknowledged  that  these  symptoms  could  be attributed to any number of other factors in the mobile phones users' environment, such as working with computers, stress, driving or reading.
2. After considering all of the evidence placed before them, the Task and Finish  Group  requested  a  section  of  the  final  report  be  dedicated specifically  to  health  issues,  as  it  felt  that  this  focus  would  form  an important part of its draft recommendations.
3. Members  requested  the  following  health  issues  in  particular  be summarised in the Group's final report.

1. Mobile Phones and Base Stations

Research suggests that there are direct and indirect ways by which health could be affected as a result of exposure to mobile phones and base stations. These are by thermal (heating) effects caused mainly by holding mobile phones close to the head for hand-held use, or to parts of the body closest to the phone during hands-free use. Hands-free extensions, which allow the phone to be held away from the body, have the potential for reducing exposure, but some recent tests have cast doubt on their general level of effectiveness.

There is evidence that using a mobile phone whilst driving, even with hands-free technology, can increase the risk of accidents. Also some  people's  well-being  may  be  adversely  affected  by  the environmental impact of mobile phone base stations sited near their homes,  schools  or  other  buildings,  as  well  as  by  their  fear  of perceived direct effects.

2. Acoustic Neuromas

An acoustic neuroma is a benign tumour on the auditory nerve that usually grows slowly over a period of years before it is diagnosed. It occurs  in  less  than  one  adult  per  100,000  per  year. No  firm evidence was found during the Group's investigations to suggest that mobile phones can impact on acoustic neuromas.

3. Possible risks to children

The Group acknowledged that the youth market was highly lucrative where the selling of mobile phones was concerned. In particular, by advertising cheap voice and text messages.

The Group also acknowledged that there were parents who felt they wanted their children to have mobile phones for safety reasons.

The Group perceived that children were more likely than adults to be vulnerable to any unrecognised health risks from mobile phone use and that parents should ensure their children use mobile phones only when absolutely necessary because of the potential health risks, including brain tumours. It was felt that if there was a health risk - which remained unproven - it would have a greater effect on young people.

The Group felt that an increased need to educate children regarding their use of mobile phones should be acknowledged within the final report. (The age of 16 is usually recognised as the age at which individuals are sufficiently mature to make informed choices about other 'adult' activities).

5. Programmed Cell Death  

Twelve institutes in seven countries have found genotoxic effects and modified expressions on numerous genes and proteins after Radio  frequency  and  extremely  low  frequency  exposure  at  low levels, below current international safety guidance, to living cells in- vitro. It has been suggested that these results confirm the likelihood of long-term genetic damage in the blood and brains of users of mobile  phones  and  other  sources  of  electromagnetic  fields. However, there are many differing opinions.

6. General Health Issues

A number of health problems can be reportedly related to digital mobile phone use, including headaches, eye problems, earache, buzzing in the head, poor concentration and memory, fatigue and skin irritation. However, these symptoms could be attributed to any number of other factors in the mobile phones users' environment, such as working with computers, stress, driving or reading.

The Department of Health updated their leaflet on Mobile Phones and Health in 2005.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet

That it notes the Panel's view that:

The widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-

essential calls should be discouraged.

The mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting

the use of mobile phones by children.

From  a  health  point  of  view  an  educational  programme

should be considered, and the Panel therefore requests that a copy of the Panel's report be sent to the County Council Health Scrutiny Panel with a request that it considered an education programme on the use of mobile phones and that it considers issuing guidance to Head Teachers and school governors on appropriate use of mobile phones.

The County Council also be referred to the Department of

Health's leaflet on Mobile Phones and Health.

4.2.9  The use of existing mobile phone mast sites is encouraged by Planning Policy Guidance 8 (PPG8) which states that "it is the Government's firm view  that  the  planning  system  is  not  the  place  for  determining  health safeguards. It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health.

In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a Local  Planning  Authority,  in  processing  an  application  for  planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them. (Section 30)".

7. Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control) Bill

1. The District Council's Cabinet Scrutiny Committee, at its meeting on 26th January 2006, considered a recommendation from the Environment and Economic Regeneration Policy and Scrutiny Panel from its meeting on 11th January 2006.
2. This related to a proposed response to a letter from the Campaign for Planning  Sanity  dated  7th January  2006,  requesting  support  for  the

Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control) Bill, which was originally due to be presented for its second reading on 24th February 2006, but was

adjourned until 3rd March 2006.

3. The Cabinet Scrutiny Committee unanimously agreed to support David Curry's  Telecommunications  (Planning  Control)  Bill  and  call  for telecommunication masts to be the subject of full planning controls with permitted development rights removed. The matter was considered across all political parties of the Council who have agreed a statement of support for the general principle that all telecommunications developments should be decided through the full planning process.
4. A copy of the letter from the Campaign for Planning Sanity, dated 7th January 2006, together with the Cabinet's response was forwarded to Dr Richard Taylor , MP, key spokespersons for all national political parties and all Worcestershire MPs for their consideration, with a request to support the Cabinet in its response to the Bill.
5. It  was  agreed  that  the  critical  part  of  the  Bill  was  that  permitted development  rights  would  be  removed  to  require  all  masts  to  be  the subject of a full application. Permitted development rights allowed only 56 days to deal with the matter after which there was a deemed approval. This, in reality meant only one committee cycle and did not allow for site visits or further enquiries to be made.
6. The Telecommunication Masts (Planning Control) Bill will not conclude its second reading by Parliament until October 10th 2006.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet

The  Cabinet  continue  to  urge  Dr  Richard   Taylor ,  MP,  key spokespersons for all national political parties and all Worcestershire MPs  to  support  David  Curry's  Telecommunications  (Planning Control) Bill and call for telecommunication masts to be the subject of full planning controls with permitted development rights removed, when the Bill is re-considered by Parliament on 10th October 2006.

8. Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control) Bill

In March 2006, the ODPM published a report prepared by the University of Reading and Arup which reviewed the operation and effectiveness of the Code of Best Practice on the mobile phone network development.

4.8  Telecommunications Code of Practice

The research involved interviews with approximately 30 local planning authorities, the 5 mobile phone operators, O2 Airwave (responsible for the tetra network), agents and a number of community groups or representatives with an interest in this type of development.

The objectives of the study were:-

1. To assess how far the aims of the Code had been achieved
2. To evaluate the impact, effect and effectiveness of the Code's guidance
3. To assess to which extent to which local planning authorities have effectively operated the guidance
4. To assess the public perception of the Code and its effectiveness, particularly in regard to consultation with local communities and their representatives
5. To gauge local planning authorities' views on the operators' performance in implementing the Code
6. To  identify  areas  or  particular  issues  within  the  Code  that  have  been successful or have been widely or effectively implemented and give examples of  best  practice  or  learning  points  that  could  be  shared  with  other  local authorities
7. To identify areas and issues within the Code or not covered within the Code that need to be addressed and to make recommendations to improve the effectiveness and implementation
8. To make recommendations for change that would facilitate better community consultation

The report concludes that from their enquiries local authorities and operators both felt the annual submission of roll out plans was an important and worthwhile part of the code. Although 85% of LPA's interviewed stated that they were invited to discuss  roll  out  plans  by  individual  operators,  only  37%  indicated  that  they actively took up these invitations. LPA's attributed this to a lack of resources and the pressure of performance targets in other areas pushing telecommunications down their list of priorities. Whilst generally welcoming roll out plans, LPA's did raise  some  concerns  regarding  the  variation  in  the  information  provided  by different operators. Over half of the LPA's interviewed, however, considered that the opportunity to raise potential problems at an early stage was valuable.

With regard to preapplication discussions, it was considered that these were a very valuable tool.

The report however states that whilst 78% of those LPA's interviewed generally acknowledged the value of active participation at the pre-application stage, limited

time  and  resources  did  not  always  allow  them  to  undertake  meaningful discussions on prior approvals and planning permissions.

The  majority  of  LPA's  consulted,  considered  that  pre-application  community consultation  by  operators  was  beneficial  but  again  there  were  management issues raised. Sometimes the community was consulted before any information was provided to the LPA. As a result of the community consultation, members of public contacted the LPA with questions which the LPA were unable to answer due to a lack of information.

It was felt that the traffic light system was too complicated for it to be of general practical use. Confusion was caused through the different stages of consultation as an application proceeded.

Acknowledging  that  the  public  expectation  of  how  they  might  be  involved  in decisions,  means  that  new  and  updated  ways  of  consulting  need  to  be considered to ensure that a wider community involvement is achieved.

The weighting to establish a level of consultation also needs to be keep under review. A change to the traffic lights colour coding is also suggested, particularly as the colour red seems to indicate danger in many people's minds.

With regard to alternative sites, it was identified that more explanation is required of the reasons why alternative sites are dismissed and also why those particular sites  were  looked  at  in  the  first  place  to  reassure  decision  makers  and  the community that the alternatives were realistic for consideration in the first place.

The Code of Best Practice is obviously a voluntary code and this is generally seen as a weakness. One option that was considered was whether the code should be adopted as an annex to PPG8 which would necessitate significant re- drafting or alternatively to identify elements in the code that could be transferred into  a  companion  guide  to  a  revised  PPG8  which  would  be  likely  to  be accompanied by a revised Code of Best Practice.

In summary, it is believed that roll out planning should continue and the ongoing work to improve the process should also continue. There should be a continued emphasis on front loading the consultation process and the traffic light model should be reviewed. The consultation techniques recommended by the traffic light model should also be updated. There should be greater clarification of the status of the consultation being carried out and what it is intended to achieve.

RECOMMENDATION:

In the event that a consultation document is issued inviting the Council's comments on the Code of Practice that the Council supports the adoption of the Code as part of a revised PPG8, either by incorporation of the Code into the Guidance or into a companion guide to accompany the Guidance.

5.  DRAFT Recommendations

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet

1. Council ask the Mobile Operators' Association to request the Mobile  Phone  Operators  to  update  the  Rollout  Plan  on  a quarterly basis.
2. An  annual  Presentation  from  representatives  of  the  Mobile Operators' Association be invited to the Prosperity Panel to coincide with the production of the Rollout Plan.
3. No action be taken at this time to prevent Wyre Forest District Council  owned  property  being  available  to  mobile  phone network operators. However, any request be subject to the agreement  of  the  majority  of  Members  within  the  relevant Ward , before it is approved by the Council (this does not apply to  applications  or  notifications  to  the  Council  as  Local Planning Authority).
4. That mobile phone operators be encouraged to share masts on Council owned land, when appropriate and wherever possible.
5. The Council maintain an up-to-date list of all approved base stations/masts,  which  should  be  readily  available  for  public inspection, to assist both the public and operators considering site sharing opportunities.
6. That it notes the Panel's view that:

The widespread use of mobile phones by children for non-

essential calls should be discouraged.

The mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting

the use of mobile phones by children.

From  a  health  point  of  view  an  educational  programme

should be considered, and the Panel therefore requests that a copy of the Panel's report be sent to the County Council Health Scrutiny Panel with a request that it considered an education programme on the use of mobile phones and that it considers issuing guidance to Head Teachers and school governors on appropriate use of mobile phones.

The County Council also be referred to the Department of

Health's leaflet on Mobile Phones and Health.

The  widespread  use  of  mobile  phones  by  children  for  non-

essential calls should be discouraged. We also recommend that the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children.

From a health point of view an educational programme should be

considered, and the Panel therefore requests the following:

1. the  County  Council  Health  Scrutiny  Panel  consider  a education programmed warning children of the potential risk of intensive mobile phone use, and
2. the  County  Council  Health  Scrutiny  Panel  consider issuing  guidance  to  Head  Teachers  and  School Governors with regard to the potential risk of intensive mobile phone use.

7. The  Cabinet  continue  to  urge  Dr  Richard   Taylor ,  MP,  key spokespersons  for  all  national  political  parties  and  all Worcestershire  MPs  to  support  David  Curry's Telecommunications  (Planning  Control)  Bill  and  call  for telecommunication  masts  to  be  the  subject  of  full  planning controls with permitted development rights removed, when the Bill is re-considered by Parliament on 10th October 2006.
8. In the event that a consultation document is issued inviting the Council's comments on the Code of Practice that the Council supports the adoption of the Code as part of a revised PPG8, either by incorporation of the Code into the Guidance or into a companion guide to accompany the Guidance.

6. Conclusions

1. Despite  public  concern  about  the  safety  of  mobile  phones  and  base stations, little research specifically relevant to these emissions has been published  in  the  peer-reviewed  scientific  literature.  This  presumably reflects the fact that it is only recently that mobile phones have been widely used by the public and as yet there has been little concrete evidence relating to potential health effects caused by exposure to radiation from mobile phone technology. The Panel shares the public's concerns about the lack of scientific evidence to rule out perceived health risks.
2. There continues to be conflicting views regarding the links between health and mobile phone masts. Some people remain convinced that there are adverse health affects from mobile phone masts. In contrast there is scientific  and  medical  evidence  which  disputes  such  claims  as  an exaggeration. In any case, the dilemma faced by the general public seems to be that whilst it is acceptable to have a mobile phone, few would choose to have a mobile phone mast located near to them. Their reasons ranged from health and safety issues, loss of visual amenity, and devaluation to their homes.
3. The  Group  was  concerned  that  children,  in  particular,  may  be  more vulnerable  to  mobile  phone  use  because  of  the  developing  nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head and a longer lifetime of exposure. However, the existence of conflicting findings from research into links between health and mobile phone masts has only resulted in a perceived' health risk.
4. The Chairman is pleased to advise that a worthwhile scrutiny exercise has been  undertaken,  with  several  achievable  draft  recommendations identified.
5. The Task and Finish Group's interpretation of the evidence and its draft recommendations for the Council's Cabinet are appended to this report.
6. The Chairman of the Panel wishes her thanks to go to all Members of the Panel for their contributions and assistance in the Scrutiny exercise and for those  officers  who  attended  the  meetings  and  took  responsibility  for reporting back on information requested by the Panel.
7. The Panel's Work Programme for the forthcoming municipal year will be updated to include progress reports relating to Mobile Phone Masts.

7. Background Papers

Scoping form

Notes  from  the  seminar  held  on  28th  September  2005  with

representatives  from  the  Mobile  Operators'  Association  and telecommunications operators

Notes from the seminar held on 7th November 2005 with Dr M Clark of

the Health Protection Agency

Briefing Note dated 23rd November 2005 and accompanying Site Plan

outlining the rollout information relating to the five telecommunications operators

Report to Birmingham City Council: Review of the Siting of

Telecommunications Equipment on Council Land and Premises

Supplementary Planning Guidance Note Telecommunications – a

Design Guide' – from Coventry City Council (Draft document for consultation dated June 2005)

The following Fact Sheets:

How mobile phones work and the need for radio base stations Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health

Mobile phone base stations and health

Mobile phones and health

Site Sharing

Public exposure guidelines for mobile phone base stations

Summary  of  Recent  Reports  on  Mobile  Phones  and  Health  (2000-

2004) – Z J Sienkiewicz and C I Kowalczuk

8. Appendices

Appendix 1 – Glossary of Terms

Appendix 2 - Results from Young People's Mobile Phone Survey

APPENDIX 1

Glossary of Terms

HPA

Health Protection Agency

Radiofrequency (RF)

the type of radiation emitted from mobile phones

NRPB

National Radiological Protection Board

ICNIRP

International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection

Analogue

Old style mobile phones

AGNIR

Independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation

GSM and 2nd Generation (2G) services

Digital mobile phones (the majority of all modern mobiles) and the current technology for the operation of mobile phone masts

3rd Generation (3G) services

'3G' is a term used to describe the next generation of mobile phone systems

WHO

World Health Organisation TETRA

Terrestrial Trunked Radio

IARC

International Agency for Research on Cancer

Useful information

Health Protection Agency Headquarters

Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards Radiation Protection Division

Chilton

Didcot, Oxon

OX11 0RQ

Telephone 01235 831600 Fax 01235 833891

Email rpd@hpa-rp.org.uk

Code of Best Practice www.odpm.gov.uk

Report of the Stewart Group www.doh.gov.uk/mobile.htm General Information www.mobilemastinfo.com www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk

APPENDIX 2

RESULTS FROM YOUNG PEOPLE'S MOBILE PHONE SURVEY

 Percentages

Total received

What is your age

 years

Do you have a mobile phone?

78%

12%

10% years

568

How old were you when you first started using a mobile phone?

Who do you call on your mobile phone?

17%

 Total:

6% 78% 38%

442 305 378

Do you have a 2G or 3G phone? How do you pay for your phone?

62% 11%

89%

 Percentages 35%

Total received

What is your age

 years

Do you have a mobile phone?

35%

30% years

174

How old were you when you first started using a mobile phone?

Who do you call on your mobile phone?

8%

 Total:

17% 75% 35%

59 31 29

Do you have a 2G or 3G phone? How do you pay for your phone?

65% 21%

79%

 Percentages

Total received

What is your age

 years

Do you have a mobile phone?

71%

21% 7%

14

How old were you when you first started using a mobile phone?

 years

Who do you call on your mobile phone?

10%

 Total:

0% 90% 100%

10 4 8

Do you have a 2G or 3G phone? How do you pay for your phone?

0% 13%

88%

 Percentages 98%

Total received

What is your age

 years

Do you have a mobile phone?

1%

1% years

380

How old were you when you first started using a mobile phone?

Who do you call on your mobile phone?

18%

 Total:

4% 78% 38%

373 270 341

Do you have a 2G or 3G phone? How do you pay for your phone?

62% 10%

90%