Scrutiny Report to Birmingham City Council

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

5 JULY 2005

Report to the City Council

Review of the Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Land and Premises

Further copies of this report can be obtained from:

Scrutiny Support Officer:  Rosemary Haarhoff

:  0121 303 1731

E-mail:  Rosemary.haarhoff@birmingham.gov.uk

Reports that have been submitted to Council can be downloaded from

www.birmingham.gov.uk/scrutiny.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

Contents

1  Summary  6 2  Summary of Recommendations  9 3  Terms of Reference  12

1. The Reasons for the Review  12
2. The Committee and its Terms of Reference  12
3. Methodology  13

4  Findings – The National Context  15

1. Explosion in the use of Mobile Phones in the UK  15
2. How Mobile Phones Work  16
3. The Technology  18
4. Expressions of Public Concern  20
5. The Paradox  21

5  Findings - City Council Current Practice  22 6  Findings - The Key Players  25

2. Government  25
3. Health Protection Agency (HPA)  27
4. Local Planning Authority (LPA)  28
5. Mobile Phone Operators and Mobile Operators Association (MOA)  33
6. Pressure Groups Opposing Mobile Phone Masts  37
7. The Birmingham Business Community  38
8. Ofcom  39
9. TETRA  40

7  Findings – Public Perceptions  43 8  Findings – The Stewart Reports and Other Scientific

Reports on Public Health Concerns  48

1. Range of Evidence Provided  48
2. Contentious issues  48
3. A Precautionary Approach  50

9  Conclusions and Recommendations  53

1. The Moratorium  53
2. Tighter Regulatory Regime  54
3. Operational Arrangements  57
4. Communication and Public Information  59
5. Lobbying Government  60

Appendix 1  GLOSSARY OF TERMS  65 Appendix 2  REVIEW PROFORMA  69 Appendix 3  PEOPLE'S PANEL REPORT  73

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

Appendix 4  EVIDENCE FROM PRESSURE GROUPS  136

Appendix 5  WRITTEN EVIDENCE RECEIVED FROM THE

PUBLIC  178 Appendix 6  OFCOM EMISSIONS AUDIT REPORT  192 Appendix 7  ICNIRP GUIDELINES AND CERTIFICATE  212 Appendix 8  BACKGROUND SOURCES  214

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

Preface

By Councillor Michael Wilkes  Chair, Co-ordinating Overview and Scrutiny Committee  

This has been a particularly challenging – and interesting scrutiny review. Mobile telecommunications are a matter of wide public interest – not only amongst people having concerns about the technology but also amongst the millions of people who use mobile phones every day of their lives. As individuals we no doubt came to the table with a range of views, but we took particular care not to set ourselves up as health experts. Quite naturally though, we heard much in this connection and formed a high regard both for the people who expressed their concerns cogently and with great conviction and also for those whose analysis lent support to official positions on this vexed question. Rather, we took the view that our primary focus was to advise the City Council on what it should do in relation to its own land and property bearing in mind all that we had heard and the value of maximum influence. In this we take a united view as a committee and our report is before you.

My thanks must go firstly to my fellow Councillors on the Review Group. My task of chairing the group was made much easier by the fact that we worked so well together as a team, each benefiting from the others knowledge and interests. I would also like to express thanks to those who gave evidence to us - to the interest groups and their advisors who presented their cases with conviction and coherence; to the expert witnesses and agencies who gave generously of their time and expertise; and to the mobile operators and their representatives who generally responded well to our queries and requests.

Our thanks must also go to those officers who supported the committee. We were particularly helped by the Chairman of the Planning Committee, (Councillor David Roy), agreeing the involvement of two of his staff (John Culligan and Graham Mitchell) at all of our meetings. Azmat Mir from the Development Directorate also attended most of our meetings. And finally, the backbone of our review, was our immediate support team of Natalie Borman, Ajmal Hussain and John Cade (Scrutiny Office) and Phil Cooper (Committee Manager).

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

At the heart of our review is the dilemma that most of us want to use a mobile phone either regularly or on occasion, but few of us would choose to have one of the consequential mobile phone masts located nearby. We trust that members of the Council will see our proposed resolution as realistic, practical and balanced; well founded, as we believe it to be, on a much tighter regime of regulation and verification.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

1  Summary

"It's only a toy"

( Gardiner Greene Hubbard, co-founder of the National Geographic Society upon seeing Alexander Bell's new fangled telephone in 1876).

"Although it is interesting as an interesting novelty the telephone has no commercial application"

(John Pierpoint Morgan, [1837-1913] to Alexander Graham Bell).

1. This toy with no commercial application now has, in its mobile form, some 60 million UK subscribers. Most people also regard their mobile phone as an indispensable part of their daily life. We cannot Canute – like (although most likely an historical misapproprism) turn the tide back.  What,  however,  can  be  done  is  to  ensure  that  there  is  a regulatory regime, both nationally and locally, which gives people the confidence to make informed choices and gives local authorities the power to represent the interests of their local communities.
2. This explosion in mobile phone use requires an ever increasing number of transmitters. There are currently some 45,000 base station sites in the UK. Of these base stations which are commonly called masts', two thirds are installed on existing buildings or structures (Mobile Operators Association MOA). Additional base stations will be required to support the third generation of mobile phones (3G); the MOA estimate that the number of base stations / masts will increase to 50,000 by 2007.
3. The  increase  in  the  use  of  mobile  phone  technology  has  been accompanied by concern in some sections of the community about the health risks from living, working or being educated in close proximity to a  mast.  Public  fears  have  been  accentuated  by  the  lack  of  widely accepted  scientific  evidence  about  the  safety  of  this  type  of telecommunications  equipment.  The  issue  is  one  which  receives extensive coverage in the media and appears in political debate at both a local and national level.
4. Our Task and Finish Overview and Scrutiny Committee was initiated following the decision of the City Council to impose a moratorium on the siting of any further telecommunications equipment on its land and premises. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was asked to examine prevailing evidence, taking advice from key players in this area and to make recommendations on a way forward.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

5. The Committee adopted a range of evidence gathering techniques to ensure that it had access to the most up to date information about mobile phone masts. These included receiving evidence from elected members,  the  public,  scientific  and  medical  experts,  public  interest groups,  representatives  from  the  mobile  phone  industry,  the  West Midlands Police and officers from the City Council's Legal, Planning and Property services. To identify best practice, literature searches were undertaken and contact made with several other Local Authorities.
6. Whilst we fully understand the argument that the banning of mobile phone  masts  on  Council  land  and  property  sends  out  a  powerful message  that  the  City  Council  shares  concerns  about  the  lack  of scientific evidence to rule out health fears, the reality is that mobile phones are an integral part now of most people's lives and are not going to be given up. We have, therefore, put more emphasis on maximising the City Council's limited influence on the current proliferation of masts and sites.
7. If the moratorium was maintained on our sites/buildings, leaving aside a possible legal challenge, this would simply result in the displacement of masts/sites to privately owned locations and public highways. This could well result in mobile phone masts/sites being located in even more unacceptable locations e.g. a mast on the top of a high rise building may be objected to by fewer people than a large number of scattered lower level masts.
8. Any lifting of the moratorium, however, must be complemented and accompanied by a much tighter regulatory regime. The City Council must not be a soft touch and in the interests of the well being of people who live and work in Birmingham, must make it clear that any proposal for a mast to be installed on council land and premises must be on the City Council's terms and not those of the operators. We were struck in the evidence that we took that a few Local Authorities have enforced a more regulated regime as opposed to the mobile phone operator self regulated regime. We consequently make recommendations for a much tougher regulatory regime.
9. What also emerged from the evidence-giving sessions, and in particular from the People's Panel telephone and focus group sessions, was that there was widespread concern at the lack of reasonably straightforward advice concerning the risks of mobile phones and mobile phone masts. Coupled with this was a view that the City Council – as a reasonably trusted body – had a role in helping to disseminate this information e.g. producing an information booklet.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

10. This goes some way to explain the "paradox". There is no dispute that emissions from mobile phone handsets are much greater than from mobile phone masts. The common thread through all the advice from the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones is that care needs to be taken, particularly by children, on the intensity of use of a mobile phone; yet it is the mobile phone mast that gets all the focus of attention. A possible explanation for this is that most of us want to use mobile phones and choose to do so, whilst the location of mobile phone masts is something which is "done unto us".
11. And then there is the influence of the Government which sets the framework particularly for planning. We believe the government can do much more here – for example, why is it that in Scotland and Northern Ireland  full  planning  permission  is  required  for  all  installations  of transmitters, but not in England?
12. The  Committee  recognised  that  there  are  disparate  strands  to  the debate on the whole issue of mobile phone technologies. The issue is complex and not aided by the terminology used; to assist with the reading of this report a glossary is attached as Appendix 1.

Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation  Responsibility  Completion Date R1  That, in order to maximise the influence of the  The Leader  1 November

City Council over the location and distribution of  2005

mobile phone masts and base stations, the

moratorium on the use of Council owned land

and property be lifted from 1 November 2005

provided that the measures included in the

accompanying recommendations (excepting R3

and R19) are put in place.

R2  That, before the lifting of the moratorium, the  The Leader  October 2005

City Council puts in place a much tighter

regulatory regime specified in more detail in

subsequent recommendations.

R3  That a further comprehensive review of the City  The Leader  2008

Council's policy on the siting of

telecommunications equipment on its land and

premises be undertaken after three years.

R4  That roll-out plans are fully discussed with the   Deputy Leader  September 2005

City Council and that an advisory Member

Forum is established for this purpose. This

Member Forum also to have more general

responsibility as an interface with mobile phone

operators, to assess the operation of the new

regulatory regime and to consider technical and

research developments. The terms of reference

of the Member Forum to be agreed with the Co-

ordinating Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

R5  That all telecommunications sites which are  Chairman of the  September 2005

granted approval should be "targeted sites" to  Planning Committee

ensure that the equipment installed is in

accordance with that shown on the approved

plans.

R6  That independent checks are made to confirm   Deputy Leader  September 2005

that the actual installation of

telecommunications equipment conforms to the

original specification supplied.

R7  That independent audits are undertaken of   Deputy Leader  September 2005

emissions and publicised to ensure public

confidence that base stations do not exceed the

current ICNIRP or any future more

comprehensive guidelines.

R8  That a charge to enable independent technical   Deputy Leader  October 2005

auditing of installations be included in site

rental fees.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

R9  That to reinforce the mobile phone operators'  Mobile Phone  September 2005

commitment to mast and site sharing wherever  Operators

this is desirable and practicable, the operators

be required to demonstrate why they are taking  Chairman of the

the course of action that they are, and if it is  Planning Committee

not fully satisfied, the City Council consider

refusing approval to the installation of a new

mast.

R10  That a standard Lease Agreement is developed   Deputy Leader  September 2005

and made mandatory for all City Council

Directorates. The Agreement must contain the

flexibility to terminate the contract should the

City Council consider at a scheduled review that

research has shown adverse health effects.

R11  That those lease agreements, with regard to   Deputy Leader  September 2005

telecommunications equipment on school sites,

other educational establishments and social

care facilities within the control of the Local

Authority, must be made with the governing

bodies / managers' prior agreement, following

appropriate consultation and must provide them

with the flexibility to have the contract

terminated.

R12  That when consent is sought from a   Deputy Leader  September 2005

school/educational establishment/social care

facility for the installation of mobile

telecommunications equipment they should be

provided with adequate information to make an

informed decision, including an explanation of

the way in which emissions relate to the

distance and direction away from the

installation.

R13  That at least 50% of the income derived from   Deputy Leader  September 2005

the siting of telecommunications equipment

should be returned for the collective benefit of

the tenants/residents/users of that facility and

that the implementation of this provision is

reviewed annually.

R14  That the City Council produces an information   Deputy Leader  October 2005

booklet about mobile phone technologies,

health concerns, siting, design and appearance.

This to be made widely available through all the

City Council's normal local outlets. This

information also to be put on the City Council's

website.

R15  That a fully comprehensive and up-to-date  Chairman of Planning  October 2005

register of mobile phone masts and base  Committee

stations in the City is maintained and made

available to the public, including a readily

accessible electronic format and that its

availability is publicised.

R16  That Ward Members are consistently informed  Chairman of Planning  July 2005

about the receipt of applications for mobile  Committee

phone masts for their Ward s and adjacent areas

of neighbouring Ward s, and are provided with

an up to date picture of all mobile

telecommunications apparatus known to be in

the Ward on an annual basis.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

R17  That directly through the Leader of the Council,  The Leader  September 2005

via the City's MP's and through the Local

Government Association, the Government be  Local Government

lobbied to give Local Authorities in England and  Association

Wales a stronger role in being able to regulate  City MP's

the installation of telecommunications

equipment.

R18  That as in Scotland and Northern Ireland the  The Leader  September 2005

Government is specifically asked that full

planning permission be required for installations

of all telecommunications equipment.

R19  Progress towards achievement of these   Deputy Leader  January 2006

recommendations should be reported to the Co-

ordinating Overview and Scrutiny Committee in

January 2006.

Subsequent progress reports will be scheduled by the Committee as necessary thereafter, until all recommendations are implemented.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

3  Terms of Reference

1. The Reasons for the Review

1. In response to increasing community concerns around the safety of mobile phone masts, the City Council at its meeting in February 2004 imposed a moratorium on the erection of new masts or upgrades to existing ones on council owned land and property.
2. Following the imposition of the moratorium, the co-ordinating overview and  scrutiny  committee  was  asked  to  research  currently  available information  concerning  mobile  phone  masts  and  to  make recommendations on what an appropriate policy stance by the City Council should be.
3. The issue of telecommunication equipment or mobile phone masts as they are commonly referred to is one of high public interest. Concerns have been expressed at both a national and local 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 by a significant number of people.

2. The Committee and its Terms of Reference

1. The terms of reference for the review were agreed by the Co-ordinating Overview and Scrutiny Committee in November 2004 and are attached as Appendix 2.
2. The review was carried out by the following group of Councillors:

• Councillor Michael Wilkes (Chair)

• Councillor Susan Axford

• Councillor Jan Drinkwater

• Councillor Zoe Hopkins

• Councillor Timothy Huxtable

• Councillor Barbara Jackson

• Councillor Sarah-Jayne Plant

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

• Councillor Neville Summerfield

3. The officer team was lead by John Cade, with Natalie Borman and Ajmal Hussain acting as Lead Review Officers. Phil Cooper was our Committee Manager.

3. Methodology

3.3.1  The review group utilised a range of evidence-gathering techniques, including:

• Presentations  from  City  Council  Officers  from  Planning,  Legal Services, Property Services and Finance.

• Elected Members were written to and asked to submit their views. A number of Members also gave oral evidence to the Committee.

• Discussions with representatives from the Mobile Phone Industry including the Mobile Operators Association, Orange, Vodafone, O2, T-Mobile, UK Broadband and 3.

• Presentations and written submissions from interest groups including SCRAM  (Seriously  concerned  residents  against  masts),  BRAM (Birmingham Residents against masts), a number of Neighbourhood Forums,  Mast  Sanity,  Birmingham  Association  of  Neighbourhood Forums (BANF), Mast Action, EM Radiation Research Trust, Sutton Coldfield  Electro  Sensitives  (SCES),  Friends  of  the  Earth  and Birmingham Chamber of Commerce.

• Public consultation meetings were held in the City, one in the North and one in the South.

• The People's Panel was used to test public knowledge about the issue of mobile phone masts. Two methods were used, a telephone survey and focus groups.

• On  the  issue  of  TETRA,  oral  evidence  was  invited  from  West Midlands Police, TETRAWATCH and O2 Airwave. West Midlands Police and TETRAWATCH gave oral evidence but 02 Airwave chose not to attend.

• Examining background information on best practice including other Local Authorities policies and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Code of Best Practice.

• Members and Officers undertook site visits to a school and two accommodation blocks, one of which was for older people. This also provided an opportunity to speak with the headteacher, governors and  tenants  to  establish  their  views  on  the  siting  of telecommunications equipment on their buildings.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

• Contact was established with OFCOM, the regulatory body for the telecommunications  industry.  OFCOM  undertook  an  audit  of  the emissions from a mobile phone mast in the City.

• Expert testimony was provided by Dr John Stather and Dr Michael Clark  (Health  Protection  Agency),Jammi  Rao  (Director  of  Public Health, North Birmingham PCT), Dr Gerard Hyland (Associate Fellow, University of Warwick),Dr John Walker (SCRAM) and John O'Brien (TETRAWATCH).

• Desk  research  was  carried  out  to  identify  literature  relating  to telecommunications  equipment;  particularly  about  health  and science.

4  Findings – The National Context

1. Explosion in the use of Mobile Phones in the UK

1. There are now some 60 million mobile phone subscribers in the UK; mobile phones have become part of our everyday life. Mobile phones are now regarded as an indispensable part of most people's lives. Walk from the Council house to Marks & Spencer's on any lunch time and you will see mobile phones glued to people's ears as if they were part of their anatomy. Their use also regularly penetrates the Council House itself with successive Lord Mayors feeling the need to introduce fines for not switching mobile phones off.
2. Mobile phones have been available since the mid 1980s, but are often thought of as a relatively new invention because of their recent high- profile  consumer  popularity.  Early  mobile  phones  were  large, cumbersome  and  unreliable.  However,  the  launch  of  2G  (second generation) and the fact that phones became smaller and more reliable, has led to a steady growth in their popularity. The explosion in growth in the number of UK mobile phone subscribers is illustrated in figure 1 below:

(Source - Health Protection Agency)

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

3. The current technology for the operation of mobile phone masts is known as 2G or GSM, and the supporting structure for that is largely in place. The new generation of mobile communication systems is known as 3G and is creating a demand for more installations as different technology requires new networks, offering access to the internet and video viewing. Eventually, old masts will be replaced. In addition there is the digital communications network for the police, the terrestrial trunked radio system (TETRA) which also requires a mast infrastructure.
4. Additional  technologies  are  being  developed  and  used  in  the telecommunications field. 3G has already been noted but there is also Bluetooth,  wireless  local  area  networks  (WLANs),  ultra-wideband technology (UWB) and radio frequency identification devices(RFID)
5. With the introduction of third generation (3G) services in 2003 and the other  new  technologies  mentioned,  the  UK's  mobile  phone  user population is set to increase further. Information provided by the Mobile Operators Association (MOA) to the Committee stated that:

"There are already around 60 million mobile phone users in the UK. Last year a record 75 million text messages were sent each day – 4.5 billion more text messages than was sent in 2003." (Stuart Eke, MOA)

6. The increase in the use of mobile phones and the introduction of 3G will lead  to  an  increase in the number  of base stations / masts. It is reported that 135,000 new mobile phone masts would be needed across the country, with 2000 of these in Birmingham.
7. A brief description of how mobile technology operates is detailed below.

2. How Mobile Phones Work

1. The  main  difference  between  a  standard  telephone  and  a  mobile telephone is that a standard telephone converts the sound waves of our voice into electrical signals which are sent along telephone lines, whilst a mobile phone converts the sound waves of our voice into radio waves which are transmitted through the air.
2. Mobile phones cannot work without base stations (commonly called "masts"). Base stations consist of a number of antennas that both transmit and receive signals from mobile phones. These antennas can be mounted on structures such as tall buildings, rooftops, lampposts, trees, flagpoles, church spires and housing tower blocks. After receiving the signal from a mobile phone, the base station then transmits a signal to a "switching centre", a telephone exchange for mobile phones. Here the call is "switched" either to another mobile phone or to the telephone network (see figure 2)

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

Fig 2: Radio waves in mobile telephony

(Source: Health Protection Agency)

3. A mobile phone system requires a number of base stations. Each base station sits in the middle of a geographical area known as a cell'. The number of calls (or traffic') that a base station can handle at any one time is limited by engineering design constraints. In order to operate the mobile phone networks as efficiently as possible, base stations need to  be  located  so  as  to  maximise  the  number  of  calls  that  can  be connected during peak use periods. Therefore the geographic size of the cell depends on the traffic during these periods. Cells in populated areas, with many mobile phone users will be smaller than cells in less populated areas. As the boundary of one cell is crossed, the cell next to it will automatically take over. The cells overlap to prevent holes in coverage.
4. There are three types of cells: macrocells, microcells and picocells (see figure 3).
5. A  macrocell  provides  the  main  coverage  in  a  mobile  network.  The antennas for macrocells are mounted on ground-based masts, rooftops and other existing structures. They must be positioned at a height that is not obstructed by surrounding buildings and terrain. Macrocell base stations have a typical power output of tens of watts.
6. Microcells provide infill radio coverage and additional capacity where there are high numbers of users within macrocells. The antennas for microcells are mounted at street level, typically on the external walls of existing structures, lamp posts and other street furniture. The antennas are smaller than macrocell antennas and when mounted on existing structures,  can  often  be  disguised  as  building  features.  Typically, microcells  provide  radio  coverage  across  smaller  distances  and  are placed 300m-1000m apart. They have lower outputs than macrocells, usually a few watts.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

7. A picocell provides more localised coverage than a microcell. They are normally found inside buildings where coverage is poor or where there are a high number of users, such as airport terminals, train stations or shopping centres.

Fig 3: diagram showing cells and base stations.

(Source: Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Development)

8. The MOA state that in the UK "base stations are usually built 200-500m apart in towns and 2-5km apart in rural areas. The size of a cell also depends on the local terrain. Radio signals can be blocked by trees, buildings, hills and valleys so base stations may have to be closer together  large  outdoor  masts  can  handle  about  100  to  150 simultaneous calls, while a small base station typically inside a building carries about 30. In an area where call traffic is high additional base stations may have to be built to provide effective customer service." (MOA March 2004).

3. The Technology

1. Concerns exist within the public about the possible impact of mobile phone technologies on health and well-being. These concerns relate to the fact that both mobile phones and base stations emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation (See Figure 4). People are exposed to different types of radiation that exist in the natural environment. These include both ionising and non-ionising radiations.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

2. Ionising radiations include x-rays, gamma rays, alpha and beta particles and neutrons. When ionising radiation passes through cellular tissue it produces charged water molecules. These can break up into entities called free radicals which are highly reactive chemically and can alter important molecules in the cell, including DNA. High levels of exposure to ionising radiation can kill cells but low doses can cause damage to DNA in a way that can ultimately go on to cause cancer or other long term health effects.

Fig: 4 Electromagnetic spectrum

(Source:www.vodafone.com )

3. Non-ionising  radiations  include  electromagnetic  fields  and  radiations (EMFs)  as  well  as  optical  radiations.  EMFs  arise  from  a  variety  of sources including the generation and use of electricity and mobile phone technology which gives rise to radiofrequencies. In contrast to ionising radiation, experimental studies have not demonstrated that EMFs can damage DNA directly and in doing so cause mutations in genes or chromosomes. They thus cannot initiate cancer in the way that ionising radiations can. There remains some possibility that they could promote the cancer process by affecting cellular changes in a manner not yet understood. Research continues to examine this possibility.
4. When these matters were discussed with a focus group of Birmingham residents, there was a pretty good understanding of how radiation can be both a force for good and harm. When, however, this was related to the  use  of  everyday  appliances  and  other  lifestyle  habits  (e.g. sunbathing) there was much confusion (see full report at appendix 3)

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

5. The prevailing view in the scientific community is that exposure to RF radiation below ICNIRP guidelines does not cause adverse health effects to the general population. However, there is some scientific evidence which suggests there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines. Biological effects do not however necessarily result in health effects. For example the impact of daylight on the retina is a biological effect which allows us to see. In the course of the review we heard from a number of people who reported they had electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) and were at pains to stress that their illnesses were not psychosomatic but were very real.
6. O2 Airwave is the new mobile radio system for the police service in England, Wales and Scotland. It is based on TETRA (TErrestrial Trunked RAdio) technology, a European standard that was agreed in the early 1990's by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. TETRA technology (or similar technology) has been adopted by emergency services in countries around the world because of its resilience and the high security it provides.
7. It is these very gaps in knowledge which led the government to set up the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) and which led that body to suggest a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available. The report of the IEGMP on Mobile Phones and Health (2000), also known as the Stewart Report, plays a vital part in a number of considerations around this subject matter and that is why we consider this in more depth later in this report.
8. Despite no clear scientific evidence of harm and indeed most scientists claiming there is no risk at all, concern continues to be expressed. Indeed, the focus group undertaken by this committee showed most people's  views  on  the  risks  associated  with  mobile  phones  were determined by what people read in the press. The next section picks up on these issues.

4. Expressions of Public Concern

1. Despite the explosion in the use of mobile phones there is considerable public anxiety around mobile phone masts.
2. The concerns can be broadly divided into three categories:

• Concerns about health and safety issues particularly associated with mobile phone masts

• Concerns about visual amenity, sound, vibration pollution, loss of value to properties etc

• Concerns about the way planning applications can be dealt with and public consultation.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

3. Public fears are heightened by media coverage of this issue; as Figure 5 below illustrates headlines in the local and national press raise the public's anxieties.
4. There can be no doubting that mobile phone masts are treated by many tabloid newspapers as a bugaboo.

Fig 5: Examples of press headlines

5. The Paradox

1. There  is  common  agreement  both  from  the  promoters  of  the development  of  the  mobile  phone  industry  and  pressure  groups opposing the proliferation of masts that RF emissions from a handset, which of course is placed directly against the head, compared with a mobile phone mast, which will invariably be a short distance away, is much greater.
2. Professor Challis (Vice Chairman of the IEGMP) uses the comparator that emissions from one hour use of a mobile phone is equivalent to one year's emissions from a mobile phone base station. Yet despite this, there remains much more public concern about mobile phone masts than mobile phones.
3. A possible explanation for this is that most of us want to use mobile phones and it is of course something we choose to do, as opposed to the location of a mobile phone mast, which is "done unto us".

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

5  Findings - City Council Current Practice

1. In response to the expressed concerns, the City Council introduced a moratorium in February 2004 to enable the prevailing evidence to be examined. This means no new telecommunications equipment has been installed or upgrades allowed to existing equipment on council owned land and property for the last 17 months.
2. At present the Council has no overall policy framework to govern the siting  of  telecommunications  equipment  on  its  land  and  premises. Strategic Directorates have used their discretion in allowing equipment on land and premises under their control.
3. The City Council currently has lease agreements on 134 sites that are distributed throughout the City, the majority being on housing tower blocks. There are also a number of installations on school and Council leisure sites. The distribution by the Strategic Directorates is listed below:

Housing  112 Resources   11 Learning and Culture   11

4. The Council does not allow subletting of its sites to other operators under the terms of its existing leases, however where space is available it  has  allowed  more  than  one  operator  to  lease  space  for  its installations. There are 13 such shared agreements in place at present.
5. The sale of the 3G spectrum licences by the Government and the terms of the licence are driving the move to 3G operations as quickly as possible. This will generate the need for additional sites to "infill" the lack of coverage as the cell sizes for 3G networks are smaller than for 2G, resulting in more base stations being required to cover the same area. Wherever possible, operators do seek to upgrade their existing base stations or share sites used by other operators, but the Council will inevitably be faced with requests for more sites.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

Financial Information

6. There are 81 rent reviews that are due up to 31 December 2006. We must ensure that for any future rent reviews the City Council achieves the maximum return for the benefit of its citizens.
7. The existing lease agreements are generally for periods between 10 to 15 years, with 39 agreements due to expire by December 2006. All the other agreements will expire by 2020.
8. No lease renewals were instigated in 2004/05 due to the moratorium being in place. It is to be noted however, that approximately 75% of the leases are historically NOT excluded from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The companies will therefore have an automatic right to renew for a further period unless the Council could establish one of the Statutory Grounds of Opposition, which would be unlikely.
9. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 allows the tenant automatic right to renewal of a lease unless one of the following grounds of opposition apply:

1. Disrepair - where the property is in such a poor state that a new lease should not be allowed. (Where tenant is responsible for repairs under the terms of the lease)
2. Persistent delay in paying the rent - and this must be "persistent"
3. Other breaches of the lease terms - breach of the lease covenants such as planning legislation and statute.
4. Uneconomic Subletting - where carrying out a marriage value of 2 demised premised would create a better value OR where a tenant is subletting below market value and this would be used at the head- lessee's rent review.
5. Alternative Accommodation - alternative premises provided for the tenants use, this must meet the tenants existing goodwill, lease terms and business needs
6. Reconstruction/demolition - Where the premises are required for redevelopment, we must show intent with planning permission and finance.
7. Landlords own occupation - where the landlord wants to occupy for his own business - intention must be proven again.

10. Because the majority of current leases were negotiated over ten years

ago,  when  there  were  few  concerns  about  such  equipment,  and the length of lease was agreed with the individual client departments,

taking into account the particular circumstances at the time, it was not considered reasonable to exclude these leases from the Landlord and

Tenant Act 1954. The majority of leases therefore have the automatic

right to renewal. Leases negotiated recently are exempted from the

Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 so as to safeguard against an automatic

right to renewal.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

11. Whilst the moratorium has given concern to the mobile phone industry, they have generally accepted the need for the City Council to develop a policy stance on this matter. This will provide some certainty to them in the way they approach and deal with the City Council. Similarly the operators recognise the City Council has a responsibility to recognise the concerns expressed from within the community. However, they have continued to point out that the longer the moratorium continues, the greater the problem becomes in ensuring adequate coverage.
12. A key part of this review has been to establish the position of key players and the next section of this report deals with these matters.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

6  Findings - The Key Players

1. Given the complexity of the mobile phone mast debate, there are a considerable number of interested organisations. This section outlines the roles, standpoints and key issues for each of the key players: Government, Health Protection Agency (HPA), Local Planning Authority (LPA), Mobile Phone Operators and the Mobile Operators Association (MOA), Pressure Groups opposed to mobile phone masts, the business community and OFCOM.
2. It  is  necessary  to  understand  the  role  each  play,  their  respective interest and what influence they actually have.

2. Government

1. The Government has given strong encouragement to the development of  mobile  phone  technology.  In  April  2000  the  Government  raised £22.47bn  from  the  third  generation  (3G)  mobile  spectrum  licence auction. It was described as the "biggest ever" auction. This made for a very competitive mobile phone market place and demonstrated how lucrative  the  mobile  phone  industry  is  in  the  UK.  Indeed  it  is  a commonly held view that the UK telecommunications industry is the most successful in Europe, and that the swift introduction of the third generation of mobile phones will be the key to maintaining the UK's competitive edge'.
2. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) is the Government department  responsible  for  legislation  on  telecommunications development. Powers to run telecommunication systems are granted under  the  Telecommunications  Act  1984,  and  the  right  to  erect telecommunication installations is conferred upon the operators under the Electronic Communications Act 2003.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

3. In November 2002, ODPM published "The Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development". The Code was produced jointly by representatives of central and local government and the mobile phone industry. It builds on the Government guidance in Planning Policy Guidance  Note  8  (revised)  (PPG8)  (see  4.11)  and  operators'  "ten commitments to best siting practice" (see 4.7.5). It was envisaged that this  publication  would  promote  standardised  practice,  greater consistency of approach and aid the transparency of the process of siting of telecommunications development, for all concerned. All the mobile phone operators became signatories of the Code. The evidence we received however, suggested there was an enormous variation in practices in the operators' approaches to implementation of the Code of Best Practice.
4. The  five  mobile  phone  operators,  having  purchased  licences  from Government, are under certain obligations with regard the development of their networks. One such obligation is to have 3G coverage to 80 per cent of the population by the end of 2007. This has resulted in an increase in the number of base stations, particularly within urban areas where population density is greater.
5. The ODPM has recently commissioned research into the operation of the Code  of  Best  Practice  on  Mobile  Phone  Network  Development, particularly the twin aspects of how Local Planning Authorities have operated the guidance and the public perception of the effectiveness of the Code. This is being undertaken by Reading University who have surveyed a number of local authorities and public pressure groups to test the efficacy of the Code. We know that the report is expected to recommend  changes  that  would  facilitate  better  community consultation.
6. At the same time, Government has also recognised a need to respond to public concerns. It took the initiative of setting up the Independent Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) in 1999 which resulted in the Stewart Report  published  in  2000  and  also  commissioned  and  supported research in other areas.
7. The Stewart Report noted the lack of detailed health research in this area and one of its key recommendations was for a programme of research  supported  by  Government  and  industry.  The  Mobile Telecommunications Health Research programme (MTHR) was launched in 2001 (see 4.10.1). In 2004, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) produced a report entitled "Mobile Phones and Health" for Government, which provided further advice to address remaining public concerns about mobile phone technology as well as related technological developments.  It  also  reviewed  progress  on  implementing  the recommendations of the Stewart Report.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

8. The Department of Health has also produced a number of leaflets giving official advice about mobile phones, base stations and health.

Fig  6:  Example  of  Department  of  Health  leaflets  on mobile phones and base stations

3. Health Protection Agency (HPA)

1. In  April  2005,  The  National  Radiological  Protection  Board  (NRPB) became part of the new Health Protection Agency under the Health Protection Act 2004.
2. The NRPB was set up by the Radiological Protection Act 1970 to advise Government and those with responsibilities for radiological protection. For certain topics of concern, the NRPB has set up independent advisory groups to asses various risks. There are Advisory Groups for Ionising Radiation,  for  Non-Ionising  Radiation  and  for  Radiation,  Risk  and Society.  The  Stewart  Committee  was  a  special  one-off  Advisory Committee which reported to Government via the Chairman of NRPB.
3. Because of the importance of the Stewart Committee and its follow up report  in  2004,  and  generally  the  authority  it  holds,  a  section  is dedicated to this in its own right (see section 8).

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

4. Local Planning Authority (LPA)

1. We were very well supported in our deliberations by officers from the Planning Division. The Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor David  Roy  also  very  helpfully  outlined  the  role  of  the  Planning Committee and, within the limitations imposed upon it by the current national planning legislation, the very serious manner in which they considered all siting applications.
2. We found that there was already a reasonable understanding about some of the limitations a Local Planning Authority has in controlling the development of telecommunications equipment. However, this did not extend  to  what  can  and  cannot  be  done  around  specific  proposed installations.  Because  this  is  crucial  to  how  the  proliferation  of telecommunications sites can/cannot be controlled, we have deliberately gone into this matter in some detail.

Planning Regulations

3. It is not always the case that telecommunications equipment requires an  application  for  full  planning  permission.  This  is  because  certain categories of telecommunications equipment either do not constitute development',  or  they  benefit  from  permitted  development'  rights (contained  in  the  Town  and  Country  Planning  (General  Permitted Development) Order 1995), and are in some cases subject to prior approval and compliance with limitations/restrictions.
4. Generally  speaking,  the  relevant  planning  regulations  identify  four categories (the types of equipment that fall into each category are set out in more detail below):
   1. Telecommunications equipment which is de minimis' (non- development) and therefore does not constitute development';
   2. Telecommunications development which is permitted development but is not of a size or number requiring either a full planning application or prior approval application;
   3. Telecommunications development which is permitted development but subject to prior approval of the Local Planning Authority in respect of siting and appearance; and
   4. Telecommunications equipment requiring an application for full planning permission.

6. Government guidance on telecommunications is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8). The issue of health concerns is dealt with in paragraphs 97 and 98 of the PPG8.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

6. The guidance in PPG8 has been reiterated in a recent case involving Harrogate Council, in which the Court of Appeal confirmed that the guidance  could  only  be  departed  from  if  there  were  "exceptional circumstances",  and  clear reasons could be given for so departing. Therefore, in cases where a telecommunication operator has submitted a certificate of compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines, it will not be for the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to consider further the issue of health concerns,  unless  it  can  provide  clear  reasons  to  demonstrate  that exceptional circumstances exist.

The Four Categories

7. (1)  Telecommunications  equipment  which  is  de  minimis  and therefore does not constitute development.

• This can include very small antennae or boxes similar in size to alarm boxes on front of buildings and below 50 cm in length. However, a telecommunications company still has to serve a 14- day letter of notification on the Local Planning Authority.

• No requirement for public consultation.

8. (2)  Telecommunications  development  which  is  permitted development but is not of a size or number requiring either a full planning application or prior approval application.

Notification (one calendar month) is required to inform the Local Planning Authority of their proposal to install equipment (Communications Regulations 2003)

• This category includes smaller equipment such as antennae up to 4 metres in height on top of buildings, dishes and antennae systems subject to a maximum criteria dependent on the size or height of the building and cabins under 2.5 cubic meters (cu.m). For a building up to 15 m (5 storeys) high, only two separate licensed operators are allowed without full planning permission. For higher buildings, three operators are permitted subject to maximum height and size criteria.

• Development has to be sited so as to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building and removed when no longer required for operational purposes.

• No public consultation requirement.

9. (3)  Telecommunications  development  which  is  permitted development but subject to prior approval of the Local Planning Authority in respect of siting and appearance

The local planning authority has 56 days to make a decision (including a statutory public consultation), otherwise development can proceed. This category includes:

• Masts up to 15 m in height (except those on a building less than 15 m in height within 20 m of the highway – see below).

• Radio cabins in excess of 2.5 cu.m (except those which exceed 30 cu.m on buildings or 90 cu.m on ground or are located in

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

Conservation Areas – see below.

• Antennae which exceed the height of the building by 4 m or more (subject to height limits mentioned in section 4 below).

• Development ancillary to radio equipment housing, e.g. access roads, fencing, ladders.

• Telephone call boxes.

• For development near to or on schools and educational establishments there is a requirement to consult those bodies (as for full planning applications).

10. (4)  Telecommunications  equipment  subject  to  full  planning permission

There is a statutory requirement for public consultation and PPG8 requires applicants to consult schools and colleges for development located close to or on these premises. This category includes:

• Masts over 15 m in height and masts (for driver information systems) on a building under 15 m and within 20 m of a highway.

• Radio cabins exceeding 2.5 cu.m in a Conservation Area of SSSI, exceeding 30 cu.m on a building or exceeding 90 cu.m on the ground.

• Situations where permitted development rights are exceeded for example on top of a building which is more than 10 m above the roof of a 30 m high building. Also where there are more than three antennae systems or operators on top of a 30 m high building.

• Development on listed buildings or scheduled monuments.

• Telecommunications antennae (which are not small antennae not exceeding 50 cm in length or those on a dwelling house) located within a Conservation Area or SSSI.

• Antennae located on a building less than 15 m in height when located on a wall or roof slope facing a highway which is within 20 m of the building.

Figure 7 below illustrates the full planning process.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

Fig 7: How the planning process works

Rights of Appeal

11. With regard to Planning Applications and Prior Approval Notifications, if refused the applicant has a statutory right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
12. In the evidence we received we were told by planners that they were very  mindful  that  if  the  planning  committee  departed  from  central government guidelines, the risk of the decision being overturned was high and that would bring with it large costs. However, others including TETRAWATCH asserted that these risks have been overstated and that where the LPA decision has been overturned, this has not resulted in awards of large costs.
13. It is clear that Local Authorities have to form a balanced judgement including weighing up the risks involved in facing a possible appeal and the consequences of an adverse outcome. A number of contributors however said they believed the City Council should be more prepared to take that risk in the interests of Birmingham.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

Planning Guidelines for Telecommunications Applications

14. There is a fair degree of shepherding about what we can do, as an LPA our  hands  are  tied.  LPA's  draw  upon  various  policies  to  assist  in determining  applications  whether  for  prior  approval  or  planning permission. These include:

1. Government Planning Policy Guidance No. 8 Telecommunications (2001)

– PPG8

2. Unitary Development Plan Draft Alterations 2001 Telecommunications, paragraph 8.55 as amended by Cabinet February 2005, and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

3. Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development (joint publication by Government, industry and local authorities)

4. Other material considerations include siting and design of proposals, merits of alternative sites and public consultation comments, impact on the visual amenity of the locality, planning case law and appeal decisions.

15. While mobile phone companies proposing to position a base station / mast / pole on the public highway or verge are not exempt from the planning regulations, from the point of view of the Highway Authority they are treated as statutory undertakers and the City Council cannot refuse the development but can suggest siting changes to avoid creating hazards  to  highway  /  pedestrian  users  and  to  comply  with  council guidelines in this respect. The City Council should always be consulted on planning applications and prior approval notices for street based telecoms.
16. Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the Local Planning Authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case. However, it is the Government's  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." (PPG8)
17. The Government is coming under renewed pressure to widen the PPG8 planning regime. Various local Authorities are lobbying, through the Local Government Association, for planning authorities to be awarded more  discretion  in  determining  applications  for  telecommunications installations along with the removal of permitted development rights. We regard it as essential that the City Council is to the fore in these representations.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

18. The All Party Parliamentary Mobile Phone Group in July 2004, made a series of recommendations toward revising the PPG8 guidelines to allow communities more consultation in pre-rollout decisions.
19. In  our  desk  research  we  found  that  Manchester  City  Council  had developed  a  consultation  protocol  for  use  on  every  occasion  an approach is made by an operator to site equipment on the City Council's land or premises. This is a prescriptive document outlining the different stages a consultation is expected to pass through. We found that some of this protocol is already practice in Birmingham. What sets it apart is the  emphasis  that  it  places  on  pre-application  discussions  and  the obligation it puts on operators to include details of the area of coverage expected from the proposed installation. It also calls for pre and post installation  monitoring  of  emissions  and  contains  a  clause requiring "reassurance monitoring" to be carried out around the site on a yearly basis with associated costs being met by the operator. The affect of the recommendations proposed by this report will produce a comprehensive tighter regulatory regime.
20. The value of the Manchester protocol is very much in its setting out clearly the Council's expectations in terms of consultation at specified stages.  However,  it  could  be  improved  by  including  protocols  for assessing that telecommunications equipment, once installed, are as according to the agreed specifications and by prescribing a rigorous process for consultation with educational establishments that defines the parties to be consulted and timeframes.
21. We learnt that in Scotland there are less permitted development rights for operators seeking to install new equipment. Since 2001, in Scotland it has been a requirement that all new mobile phone masts regardless of size are to be subject to full planning permissions. There are also requirements  for  LPAs  to  be  notified  each  time  a  new  antenna  is installed, even upon existing masts. Similarly in Northern Ireland, there are less permitted development rights there.

5. Mobile Phone Operators and Mobile Operators Association (MOA)

1. Five  mobile  phone  operators  in  the  UK  are  licensed  to  deliver  the networks  -  Orange,  Vodafone,  3,  T-Mobile,  and  O2  and  they  are represented  by  the  Mobile  Operators  Association  (MOA).  A  sixth operator, O2 Airwave Service, delivers the TETRA network.
2. The MOA represent the five UK mobile phone operators, acting as an interface  with  interested  parties  such  as  local  planners,  elected councillors,  resident  groups,  amenity  bodies  and  the  public  -  and represent the operators in public debate on relevant issues, both in the media and in policy circles.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

3. We invited evidence from the MOA in this capacity. Stuart Eke (Public Relations Executive) attended to give evidence and was supported by representatives  of  each  of  the  operators.  We  discussed  the  MOA's relationship  with  local  authorities,  in  particular  with  the  planning function. Stuart Eke advised us that key elements of this were: an annual  roll  out  plan  meeting  to  notify  local  authorities  about  each operator's network development plans for the forthcoming year; making available a mast register' to help promote mast and site share solutions ;engaging  in  pre-application  discussions;  consulting  with  local communities through elected members. Unfortunately, practice did not always bear out what we were told.
4. Stuart Eke expressed a keenness on behalf of the operators to work with local authorities in developing their networks and recognised the importance of Birmingham as a big conurbation and thriving business destination. The MOA suggested that council owned land and premises were most often the first choice for operators when locating sites for new equipment. Local Authority land, it was suggested, is better suited to telecommunication needs and the breadth of the portfolio of potential sites,  increases  the  likelihood  of  achieving  a  balance  between environmental  impact,  technical  requirements  and  community expectation. Stuart Eke suggested that high rise tower blocks were particularly suitable for siting of equipment.
5. The MOA has produced a number of documents to encourage best practice in siting decisions. One is "Working with the Local Community" and "Ten Best Practice Commitments", used as a voluntary code to help the operators address concerns relating to the development of base stations (see figure 8).

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

Fig 8: Ten Commitments to Best Siting Practice (Source MOA) 1  IMPROVED CONSULTATIONS WITH COMMUNITIES

Develop, with other stakeholders, clear standards and procedures to deliver significantly improved consultation with local communities.

2

DETAILED CONSULTATION WITH PLANNERS

Participate in obligatory pre-rollout and pre-application consultation with local planning authorities.

3

SITE SHARING

Publish clear, transparent and accountable criteria and cross-industry agreement on site sharing, against which progress will be published regularly.

4

WORKSHOPS FOR COUNCILS

Establish professional development workshops on technological developments within telecommunications for local authority officers and elected members.

5

DATABASE OF BASE STATION SITES

Deliver, with the Government, a database of information available to the public on radio base stations.

6

COMPLIANCE WITH ICNIRP PUBLIC EXPOSURE LEVELS GUIDANCE

Assess all radio base stations for international (ICNIRP) compliance for public exposure, and produce a programme for ICNIRP compliance for all radio base stations as recommended by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP).

7

ICNIRP CERTIFICATION

Provide, as part of planning applications for radio base stations, a certification of compliance with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines.

8

PROMPT RESPONSES TO ENQUIRIES

Provide specific staff resources to respond to complaints and enquiries about radio base stations, within ten working days.

9

SUPPORT RESEARCH INTO HEALTH AND MOBILE PHONES

Begin financially supporting the Government's independent scientific research programme on mobile communications health issues.

10

STANDARD DOCUMENTATION FOR PLANNING SUBMISSIONS

Develop standard supporting documentation for all planning submissions whether for full planning or prior approval.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

The Ten Commitments

6. Launched in 2001, the aim of the Ten Commitments was to help ensure transparency  in  building  mobile  phone  networks,  to  provide  more information to the public and local planners and to help increase the involvement  of  the  public  in  decisions  regarding  the  siting  of  base stations.
7. The first of these commitments is about improved consultation with communities and refers specifically to "develop, with other stakeholders, clear  standards  and  procedures  to  deliver  significantly  improved consultation with local communities". We have to say that we saw little evidence  of  a  pro-active  approach  being  taken  by  operators  here. Consultation with the City Council seemed to be varied and little effort seems to have been made in engaging with "other stakeholders".

Traffic Light Rating Model (TLM)

8. In addition, the operators have developed their own Traffic Light Rating Model  (TLM)  intended  to  assist  operators  and  their  agents  in determining the level of consultation that should be carried out when positioning a mast. The model works on a graph principle, taking into consideration planning and environmental as well as community issues. Each of these sets of issues are broken down into measurable items, which are then scored using provided checklists. The scores for each set are totalled. Running each of the scores against the relevant axis will result in the sites circumstances being rated by the operators as Green (least sensitive) Amber or Red (most sensitive). The rating allocated to the potential site is then used to determine the level of consultation.
9. The  value  and  credibility  of  this  was  challenged  by  a  number  of contributors who felt that local residents and councillors were better placed to assess community implications. This needs to start with the roll  out  plans  where  early  community  feedback  could  help  a  more balanced determination.
10. Two reviews have been conducted by Deloitte (July 2003 and January 2005) to assess the operators' performance against the aims behind the Ten Commitments and the TLM. These found that the operators "...have continued to make demonstrable progress in the implementation of the Ten Commitments". However there were recommendations against a number of the commitments e.g. increased flexibility in working with local communities; providing clearer explanations for proceeding with alternative and/or suggested sites; giving consideration to increased and new use of communication channels with local communities.

Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Council Owned  Land and Premises  

6. Pressure Groups Opposing Mobile Phone Masts

1. Across the country a number of public interest groups have emerged, concerned  about  the  potential  health  risks  and  visual  intrusion emanating from mobile phone masts. The Committee received evidence from the following groups

• Seriously Concerned Residents Against Masts (S-C-R-A-M) (formerly Sutton Coldfield Residents Against Masts)

• Mast Sanity

• Mast Action

• Birmingham Association of Neighbourhood Forums (BANF)

• Whitehouse Common and District Neighbourhood Forum