ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The objective of this document is to set out guidance for development in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. In determining proposals for telecommunications equipment/development, the Council will have regard to this guidance, policies set down in the Unitary Development Plan and to any other material considerations, including impact on visual and residential amenity and the justification for the equipment.

1.2 The document is intended to provide clarity for residents and telecommunications providers of the processes and procedures involved.

1.3 The Guidance applies to all external telecommunications equipment, including satellite antennae/dishes, terrestrial microwave antennae, and cellular antennae/aerials and base stations.

1.4 This guidance is non-statutory guidance which supplements the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, adopted on 25 th May 2002. Only the policies in the Unitary Development Plan can have the special status afforded by S54a of the Town and Country Planning Planning Act, 1990, in deciding planning applications. However, the Government advises that supplementary planning guidance may be taken into account as a material consideration, the weight accorded to it being increased if it has been prepared in consultation with the public and has been the subject of a Council resolution.

2.0 TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY: BACKGROUND

2.1 The Council understands that modern telecommunications are an essential part of the life of the Borough, and the nation. The telecommunications industry is a major sector of the economy (3% Gross Domestic Product), employing over 210,000 people, servicing over 30 million mobile telephone users. Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 “Telecommunications”, states that:

“….fast, reliable and cost effective communications can attract business to an area and help firms remain competitive”

Efficient communications systems are seen to have environmental benefits by reducing the need to travel, thereby improving air quality.

2

2.2 The introduction of the new third generation mobile telephone system (3G) in 2001 replaced the existing Digital Cellular GSM system, and required a new nationwide network of antennae. The new network was introduced to provide an enhanced service. The five licensed operators are required to provide 80% coverage of the population by 2007.

2.3 The number of telecommunications related applications have increased dramatically over the last five years, not just from individual householders, but from the five licensed telephone operators.

3.0 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK: The need for

3.1 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order As (amended) 1995 and Prior Notification

The erection of any apparatus required in connection with the provision of a telecommunications service may need planning permission. Usually, certain apparatus, such as conventional aerials, are considered to be not visually significant enough to amount to development and they do not need planning permission. Other apparatus is development permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended), and does not need planning permission. Apparatus that is permitted by the GPDO is subject to it being sited to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building and subject to it being removed when it is no longer required. If the erection of apparatus is development which is not permitted by the GPDO, the normal planning application process applies. In addition, listed building consent will usually be required if the relevant building is listed. The GPDO does not remove this requirement.

3.2 Permitted development in respect of telecommunications equipment is divided into three parts in the GPDO – Part 24 (for Code Systems Operators; these include the 5 licensed operators), Part 25 (for most other telecommunications development) and Part 1, Class H (for dwelling houses).

3.2.1 Part 24 This is complex and very detailed; a summary is given at Appendix 2. The majority of telecommunications development proposed by mobile

3 operators is “permitted development” because of Part 24. Where development is permitted by Part 24, the operator has to give the Council advance notice, known as “Prior Notification”, of the proposed siting and appearance of the installation. The Council has 56 days to consider and respond. Where prior approval is required, clear and comprehensive information must be given to the Council.

3.2.2 Part 25 This is more limited and covers other telecommunications equipment on all properties except for houses. No more than two dishes are permitted on buildings over 15 metres (49 feet), and no more than one on buildings under 15 metres (49 feet) and houses; a 15m. building is approximately 5 storeys. Also, there are limitations on the size and location of dishes.

3.2.3 Part 1, Class H

This covers single family houses and sets out what may be erected without planning permission. This includes satellite dishes, subject to size and siting restrictions. Members will recall Government consultation earlier this year proposing the relaxation of this part of the GDO, to which the Council raised great concern over the possible visual impact on this Borough.

3.3 Full Planning Applications

Where a proposal falls outside the scope of the GPDO, or where “permitted development rights” have been removed, the operator or the householder is required to submit a full planning application for the development. In considering such a proposal, the Council is required to take into account national guidance, policies of the Unitary Development Plan and other material considerations. This is discussed in greater detail later in this report.

4.0 NATIONAL GUIDANCE/ADVICE

4.1 Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8 – Telecommunications), revised in August 2001 (replacing PPG8 December 1992)

This gives guidance on planning for telecommunications development, including radio masts and , antennae of all kinds, radio equipment housing, public call boxes, cabinets, poles and overhead wires.

4 4.2 The main changes to PPG8 were:

• To update guidance to take account of developments in telecommunications technology and the growth of the telecommunications industry.

• To update guidance to take account of changes to the permitted development rights that apply to telecommunications code system operators.

• To provide advice about taking account of health considerations in making planning decisions about telecommunications development.

4.3 PPG8 consists of two parts. The first sets out planning policy and the second consists of an appendix with two annexes which provide guidance on the policy, the prior approval procedure under part 24 of the GPDO and technical developments within the telecommunications industry. There should be no distinction between the first and second part of this PPG as both should be given equal weight when being considered.

4.4 The general Policy of the Government set out in the PPG is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. Local Authorities are encouraged to respond positively to telecommunications development proposals, whilst taking into account the advice contained in other Planning Policy Guidance. Authorities are advised not to prevent competition between different operators and not to question the need for the telecommunications system which the proposed development is to support.

4.5 Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development, 2002

This was produced by the Government jointly with representatives of central and local government and the mobile telephone industry, to provide clear and practical advice to ensure the delivery of “significantly better and more effective communication and consultation between operators, local authorities and local people.” The aim is to set out standard practice which will promote consistency of approach and transparency. The code attaches great importance to securing good design and gives advice on siting and design of telecommunications equipment in order to direct development to the

5 most appropriate locations and to help minimize environmental impact and visual intrusion.

5.0 LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES

5.1 The Council’s Unitary Development Plan 2002 sets out the planning policies that are taken into account in the determination of any planning application. Policies in the “Conservation and Development” Chapter are most relevant and are set out below:

“Telecommunications Apparatus

4.4.17 Developments in telecommunications have led to changes in the way telephone and television systems operate. Both and reception create demands for various forms of (including satellite dishes). The General Permitted Development Order and Telecommunications Code Systems Operators’ Licences allow certain Telecommunications developments to take place without the need for planning permission, but in some cases allow the planning authority to require changes to siting and appearance with the aim of protecting amenity. The Council will use these powers to minimise the impact of telecommunications development and follow the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8. The Council will encourage the use of communal satellite dishes on blocks of flats. Some domestic satellite dishes may be installed as permitted development under the General Permitted Development Order. Where permission is required, the following policy will apply.

CD53 To permit satellite dishes and antennas except:

a) on listed buildings where their special character would be harmed; or

b) on the front, side and above rooflines of buildings where harm to the character of appearance of the area would be caused; or

c) in other parts of the Borough where they would cause material harm to the appearance of the surrounding area.

4.4.18 Where complying with the above policy, new satellite

6 dishes will only be permitted if:

a) they are no more than 0.9m (3 feet) in diameter (exceptions may be made in the case of Telecommunications Code Operators);

b) they are located as discreetly as possible on the building concerned, and coloured to blend in with their surroundings;

c) there is not more than one dish per residential building.

4.4.19 In view of the rapidly changing technology in this field, planning permissions will only be granted for a limited period. The Council will prepare planning guidelines on the siting and location of satellite dishes and for the apparatus connected with cable television.”

6.0 THE COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPOSALS

6.1 Annual Roll-out Discussions

In line with PPG8 and the Code of Practice, the Council is committed to discussing roll-out plans with the operators. It is recommended that operators should provide the following pre-roll-out information:

● a plan showing existing sites and search areas in the Borough and just outside

● a schedule of existing sites, including post codes and grid references

● a contact name for discussions

The Council will produce a Mast Register for its area.

6.2 Pre-application Discussions

7

All prospective applicants are encouraged to enter into pre-application discussions about their proposals. It is very important that Code System Operators contact the Council about their future proposals before submission of a planning application or prior approval proposals. Pre-application discussions are important elements within the overall process of considering proposals and can reduce delays and avoid possible refusals at the formal application stage. Such pre-application discussions are encouraged by Government guidance.

Is it considered that information provided at pre-application stage should include:

• Details of the external appearance and exact siting of the proposal

• An explanation of the need for the equipment

• Plans showing the code operator’s existing and proposed cell coverage including all existing and proposed installations.

• Evidence that, when new masts are proposed, sharing of existing masts or siting on buildings or other structures has been considered and why, if such opportunities exist and are not proposed, they are not feasible options. The Council encourages mast sharing where appropriate.

• Operators are encouraged to offer to undertake an appropriate temporary mast demonstration facility to help assess the impact of new proposals upon the surrounding environment.

• The Government’s Traffic Light Model (see below) rating for the site and proposed consultation strategy.

Informal advice only is provided at pre-application stage. However, detailed and comprehensive information should be provided at this stage to enable a proper response from the Council.

The Traffic Light Model is set out in the Governments’ Code of Practice and allows a site to be rated by the operator according to its likely sensitivity in terms of environmental, planning and community considerations. Depending on the rating, the operator draws up a plan for the level of consultation. During pre-application discussions, the Council will consider whether the chosen rating is appropriate. Where the operator chooses a site near to a school or college, they must

8 consult with the school/college at the pre-application stage. The method of consultation is set out in the Code of Practice.

6.3 Mast or Site Sharing

It may be appropriate in some cases, to limit visual impact, that sites or masts be shared. However, it is acknowledged that because of technical constraints, primarily the use of different by operators, sharing may not be feasible in all cases. Indeed, upgrading or adding to existing masts may make them more prominent. Therefore, it will be necessary for all operators to demonstrate in their planning submissions that the use of existing masts, structures and sites have been considered. Maps produced by the 5 licensed operators showing the distribution of their equipment across the Borough may be inspected at the Planning and Conservation Department. Comprehensive records are kept by the Radio Sites Databank, operated by the telecommunications industry and the Register of Mast Sites (Radio Communications Agency).

6.4 Permitted Development

Not all permitted development requires prior approval by the Council. Within this category falls the installation of additional antennae to an existing radio mast or the installation of an equipment cabinet less than 2.5 cubic metres (3.3 cubic yards) in volume. Whilst the operators do not have to notify the Council of these installations, the Code of Best Practice recommends that they do.

7.0 THE CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

7.1 Appendix 1 is a check list that operators should follow when submitting an application. It sets out the plans and supporting information that will be required before an application is registered as valid.

7.2 Four main considerations are assessed by the Council when an application is determined and a decision is reached as to whether to grant or refuse the proposal:

9 Need for development; Compliance with Council UDP policy; Health Implications; Visual amenity.

7.3 Need

The aim of Government policy, as set out in PPG8 is to ensure that there is a choice as to who provides the public with their telecommunications service, whilst ensuring the public has access to the latest technologies as they come forward. An important principle identified is that authorities should not seek to prevent competition between different operators and should not question the need for the telecommunications system which the proposed development is to support. However, PPG8 considers it appropriate for LPAs to request evidence regarding the need for the proposed development. Therefore, for planning applications, operators must include details of how the proposed development will relate to their existing network coverage and capacity. Where proposals are required to improve capacity of existing coverage, the operator should provide details of the shortfall of capacity in relation to network demand. They should in addition provide evidence of other sites that have been considered to meet the shortfall.

7.4 Unitary Development Plan Policies

In accordance with Section 54a of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, applications will be judged against their compliance with Unitary Development Plan policies. These have been set out already at Section 5 of this report, and Members will be aware that they relate to visual appearance.

7.5 Health Implications

For residents this issue is of the utmost importance and is often their primary objection to a planning application. PPG8 states that the planning system should not determine health safeguards:

“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

10 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 LPA, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them” (Paragraph 30)

Radio wave energy health considerations fall within the remit of the Health and Safety Executive. The issue of health effects from the use of mobile telephones, base stations, , was considered by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), who concluded in their report (the Stewart Report):-

“…….the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on their well-being in some cases”.

As a result of the Stewart Report, the Government has taken the view that if a proposal conforms with the guidelines for exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), as identified by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), it should not be necessary for the issue to be considered further. The European Union’s recommendation for public exposure was based on this standard:

“The Government’s acceptance of the precautionary approach recommended by the Stewart Group’s report ‘mobile phones and health’ is limited to the specific recommendations in the Group’s report and the Government’s response to them. The report does not provide any basis for precautionary actions beyond those already proposed. In the Government’s view, local planning authorities should not implement their own precautionary policies e.g. by way of imposing a ban or moratorium on new telecommunications development or insisting on minimum distances between new telecommunications development and existing development. (Paragraph 31)”

In January 2004 a follow-up report to the Stewart Report was published. This report examines possible effects of exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields with an emphasis on studies conducted since the previous review (IEGMP). The following is an exert from the conclusions:

11 “Studies reviewed by IEGMP suggested possible cognitive effects of exposure to RF fields from mobile phones, and possible effects of pulse modulated RF fields on calcium efflux from the nervous system. The overall evidence on cognitive effects remains inconclusive, while the suggestions of effects on calcium efflux have not been supported by more recent, better-conducted studies. The biological evidence suggests that RF fields do not cause mutation or initiate or promote tumour formation, and the epidemiological data overall do not suggest causal associations between exposures to RF fields, in particular from mobile phone use, and the risk of cancer. 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. Little has been published specifically on childhood exposures to RF fields, and no new substantial studies on this have been published since the IEGMP report.

In aggregate the research published since the IEGMP report does not give cause for concern. The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposures to RF fields below guideline levels, but the published research on RF exposures and health has limitations, and mobile phones have only been in widespread use for a relatively short time. The possibility therefore remains open that there could be health effects from exposure to RF fields below guideline levels; hence continued research is needed.”

In addition, the report made recommendations for future research into possible health effects.

Therefore, as part of their planning submissions, operators must confirm in a signed Certificate that the proposal complies with ICNIRP guidelines. Only in exceptional cases will the Planning and Conservation Department seek additional advice or clarification from the Council’s Director of Environmental Health.

Nevertheless, the Council is aware of the concerns and perceptions of residents that there is a health risk from a proposed development. Case law confirms that health considerations are a material planning consideration.

7.6 Design, Appearance, Visual Amenity General Guidance

7.6.1 Residents are also concerned about the visual impact of

12 telecommunications equipment. PPG1 and “By Design” state that applicants should take account of the need for good design. The overall objective is to ensure that the siting of the telecommunications equipment minimises its impact on the character and appearance of the building and the locality, as required by Unitary Development Plan policy. For properties in Conservation Areas, reference should be made to the relevant Conservation Area Proposals Statement which describes the area, its special character and sets out a general framework for development.

7.6.2 New telecommunications apparatus should respect the scale of the building or structure to which it will be attached or will adjoin and the scale of nearby buildings. It should be placed as unobtrusively as possible and preferably at the rear of the property or within existing roof space or voids. If placed at level, appropriate screening and landscaping should be used to minimise the impact. Apparatus breaking the skyline should be avoided and is unlikely to be looked upon favourably by the Council. Proposals should respect views, especially of landmarks.

7.6.3 One of the elements that will reflect the siting and design of telecommunications infrastructure is the technological constraints faced by the operators: operators will be required to justify the design chosen. This requirement will be particularly important in conservation areas and for listed buildings. Operators will be expected to pursue designs that limit the visual impact of the proposal, for example, through the choice of complementary materials or colours. Wherever possible, telecommunications equipment should be located on existing buildings and structures rather than on new sites. Large numbers of individual dishes or antennae should be avoided and the shared use of such equipment will be encouraged; communal satellite TV systems are particularly appropriate for blocks of flats. All equipment/apparatus should be of the smallest size practicable and be coloured to blend in with surrounds. Micro and picocells can be very inconspicuous. Camouflaging or disguising equipment should be considered; operators have made great advances in developing camouflage techniques in the last few years.

7.6.4 New buildings should be designed to accommodate the likely needs of prospective occupiers, for example underground cable ducting and communal antennae systems; and the designers of new buildings should integrate telecommunications equipment into their designs.

13 7.6.5 New ground base masts are not considered to be appropriate in the majority of the Borough.

7.6.6 Factors that will be taken into account in assessing visual amenity:

• Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area or adjoining Conservation Areas, and whether such areas will be harmed.

• Impact on special architectural character and historic interest of a listed building, including the setting of adjoining or nearby listed buildings.

• The height, mass, size, design, colour and materials of the equipment; and its relationship to the parent building, respecting its architectural style.

• Effect on roofline, skyline, and landmarks.

• Views from surrounding buildings and roads.

• Cumulative impact when considered together with any existing equipment.

7.6.7 In view of the rapidly changing technology in this field, usually planning permission is recommended to be granted for a limited period only.

7.6.8 Other Conditions concerning visual appearance and compliance with ICNIRP guidelines are also recommended. Examples of these are set out at Appendix 6.

7.6.9 In the past year, the Council has been successful in defending a number of appeals against the refusal of Telecommunications installations on design grounds, for example at St. Michaels and All Angels, Ladbroke Grove, Tedworth Square and 9 Wilbraham Place.

7.6.10 All applications must be accompanied by a statement confirming that the written consent of the freeholder has been obtained.

14

8.0 Guidance for Householders on Siting of Satellite Dishes

8.1 Householders should consult the Government’s “Planning Guide: Installation of Satellite Television Dishes”, (available at the Planning Information Office or the Government’s website.

8.2 Householders are advised to check always with the Planning Information Office before installation to see if planning permission is needed. Installation on a listed building will require listed building consent in most cases.

8.3 The following suggestions will help in choosing a less obtrusive position or kind of dish:

• Avoid the front elevation; locations at the rear or in the garden screened by shrubs is usually less conspicuous than the front wall of a building.

• Avoid front roofs, chimney stacks or projection above the roofline, unless hidden by high parapets or existing plant rooms; a small dish hidden behind a parapet or stack would be appropriate.

• Avoid side or rear walls, roofs or other positions which are prominent in the street scene.

• Avoid front gardens or forecourts.

• Avoid close proximity to neighbours’ windows and doors.

• A white dish will blend against a white background, but will be very conspicuous against brickwork. Choose the colour of the dish to blend in with the background.

• A mesh or transparent dish may be less obtrusive than a solid one.

Michael J. French Executive Director, Planning and Conservation

List of Background Papers: The contents of folders entitled

15 “Telecommunications”. APPENDIX 1

ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA

SUBMISSION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS

NOTES FOR APPLICANTS

I would advise you that the following information must be included with any planning application that you submit before it can be registered as valid:-

1. PLANNING APPLICATION FORMS

Form TP1 must be completed, signed and 4 copies submitted.

2. CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP

Under Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, all applications must be accompanied by a completed certificate of ownership; either A, B, C or D as shown on forms.

An owner is defined as the freeholder, or a leaseholder with an unexpired lease of 7 years or more.

i) Certificate A: Form TP1 Part2

If the applicant is the sole owner of the entire building or land, with no 7 year leaseholders, Certificate A can be completed.

ii) Certificate B: Form TP1 Part 2

Where the applicant is not an owner or is part owner of the building or land and the names and address of the other owners are known, they should be notified using Notice No. 1 followed by completion of Certificate B.

iii) Certificate C and D: Form TP1 Part 2

16

Certificate C is used when only some of the owners are known and can be notified as above. Certificate D is for when none of the owners are known and cannot be notified. In both these cases you will need to place an advertisement in the Kensington and Chelsea Times using Notice No. 2.

3. SCALED DRAWINGS

Planning applications are open to public inspection and comment. It is essential that drawing are clear and precise, this will avoid misinterpretation which could delay your application or lead to objections.

* A scaled site location plan should be submitted showing the site in relation to surrounding buildings and clearly marked.

* All applications require 4 sets of drawings. Therefore, if you are submitting a planning application and a listed building application, 8 sets of drawings are required.

* Drawings should be numbered.

* Submissions should include plans, sections and elevations, and be clearly annotated to indicate materials and colour.

* All drawings should be folded.

* All drawings must be in metric not imperial measurements.

* A scale of 1:50 or 1:100 for drawings. Preferably 1:50 for Conservation Area applications and where relevant 1:20 or 1:10 for details.

4. PHOTOGRAPHS

17 * Two sets of photographs showing the property and those adjoining.

* Photomontages are often of assistance in the assessment of cases.

5. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A covering letter should be submitted explaining your proposals, a contact details, together with the following information:

i) A signed certificate to demonstrate that the proposed installation complies with ICNIRP guidelines.

ii) the exact specification of the equipment to be installed at this site including:

• the height of the antenna;

• the frequencies that the apparatus will operate at;

• details about the paths of the microwave beams and

• the power density that will be emitted from the installation at various distances across the roof-top from the antenna.

iii) a detailed site-specific risk assessment incorporating:

• the identification of potential receptors (e.g. nearby buildings), including the estimated power densities at these locations and the possible hazards that these may represent and

• methods that will be undertaken to minimise the risks, including those risks to which personnel maintaining the site and other contractors/visitors may be exposed.

18 iv) confirmation of the reason and need for the installation in this location and details of alternative sites that have been considered.

v) confirmation that the consent of the owner of the building has been given for the installation of any equipment.

6. CONSULTATION

Confirmation that you have consulted the governing body of any nearby school or college corporation, as required by P.P.G.8, and copies of any response.

7. FEE

The correct fee must be paid at the time of submission. A separate fees list is available.

8. LISTED BUILDINGS

If your application relates to a listed building, it is likely that listed building consent will be required. Listed building forms will need to be completed and 4 additional sets of drawings provided.

Should you require any help with the submission of your application, please contact the Planning Information Office, Room 325 at the Town Hall, telephone numbers 0207361 2079/2080/2977.

Applications should be sent to:

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Planning & Conservation, The Town Hall, Hornton Street, London W8 7NX

19 APPENDIX 2 – SUMMARY OF “PRIOR APPROVAL” PROCEDURES AND “PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT” RIGHTS

• The prior approval application shall be accompanied by a written description of the proposed development and a plan indicating the site, together with the appropriate fee and the detailed information set out in Appendix 1.

Under the prior approval regime the Council has 56 days from the receipt of a valid application to determined whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance and to notify the applicant of its decision to give or refuse such approval.

If no decision is given within the 56 days, permission is deemed to have been granted.

Permitted Development

All types of equipment required for the code operator’s telecommunications system may be installed in, on, over or under land (including on buildings and on other structures, such as radio masts), or altered or replaced, subject to a number of limits and conditions, of which the main ones are summarised as follows:

• Apparatus such as radio mast (or ), which is being installed on the ground must not exceed a height of 15 metres (49 feet) above ground level, or the height of any apparatus which it replaces, whichever is the greater (this limit does not apply to antennas installed on a radio mast).

• When apparatus is sited on a building or other structure, it must not itself exceed 15 metres (49 feet) in height, if the building (or structure) is 30 metres (98 feet) or more in height, or exceed 10m. if the building (or structure) is less than 30 metres (98 feet) in height. The height of 15 metres (49 feet) does not include antenna on top. In addition, it must not add to the overall maximum height of the building by more than:

10 metres (33 feet) for buildings of 30 metres (98 feet) or more; 8 metres (26 feet) for buildings between 15 metres (49 feet) and 30 metres (98 feet); 6 metres (20 feet) for

20 buildings of 15 metres (49 feet) or less.

• An antenna may be installed on a building, other than a dwellinghouse, that is below 15 metres (49 feet) in height, or on a mast located on such a building subject to a number of limitations including the size of the antenna, the overall number and the positioning.

• An antenna may be installed on a building other than a dwellinghouse 15 metres (49 feet) or more in height, or on a mast located on such a building subject to certain limitations including size of the antenna, and number of antenna.

• Radio equipment housing, including any ancillary works such as fencing may be installed provided that it is ancillary to a telecommunications installation and within certain size limits.

• Before it is possible to make use of the permitted development rights in respect of the installation of a radio mast, radio equipment housing with a volume in excess of 2 cubic metres (71 cubic feet) or a public call box, a code system operator must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required to the details and siting and appearance of the apparatus.

• There are no permitted development rights for the installation of an antenna, a radio mast or radio equipment housing with a volume in excess of 2 cubic metres (71 cubic feet) in Conservation Areas, unless in an emergency. Where permitted development rights are used to install any other telecommunications apparatus on such land, e.g. a public call box, the determination procedure above applies.

• Any antenna which is located on a building must, so far as practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect upon the external appearance of that building.

• When apparatus is no longer required for telecommunications purposes, it should be removed as soon as reasonably practicable from the land or building on which it is located, and the land restored to its condition before the development took place.

21

22

APPENDIX 3

Further Information/Documents

Planning Policy Guidance Note 1.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications; Department of the Environment, 2001.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment).

A Householders’ Planning Guide for the Installation of Satellite Television Dishes; Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions 1998.

Telecommunications Prior Approval Procedures – Code of Best Practice; Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions 1996.

Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development, 2002.

By Design (DLTR and CABE 2000).

23 APPENDIX 4 – GLOSSARY

Aerial/Antenna: Device designed to radiate or receive electromagnetic energy/radio waves.

Base station: Facility providing transmission and reception for radio systems. For macrocells, the infrastructure comprises either roof – or mast mounted antennae and an equipment cabinet or container. For smaller microcells and picocells, the antennas and other equipment may be housed in a single unit.

Cell and Cellular: A cell in the context of mobile phone technology is the area of geographical coverage from a radio base station. “Cellular” describes such systems, but is often used to distinguish the original analogue systems from the later digital PCN systems, although the latter themselves have cells.

Electric field: Produces a force on a charged object. Measured in units of volts per metre.

Electromagnetic fields (EMF): The electric and magnetic fields associated with electromagnetic radiation.

Electromagnetic radiation: A wave of electric and magnetic energy that travels or radiates from a source.

Emissions: Generic term used to describe radio waves emitted from a mobile phone or mobile phone.

Frequency: The number of complete cycles of an electromagnetic wave in a second. Measured in units of hertz (Hz).

Hertz (Hz): Unit of frequency. One cycle per second.

International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): An independent scientific organisation responsible for providing guidance and advice on the health hazards of non-ionising radiation exposure.

Ionising radiation: Radiation which is powerful enough to alter the structure of human cells.

Macrocell: Provides the largest area of coverage within a mobile network.

24

Microcell: Transmitters designed to boost coverage over small areas already covered by a macrocell transmitter, typically 100 metres (328 feet) to 1000 metres (3280 feet).

Microwaves: Electromagnetic radiation in the range 0.3 metres. (11 inches) to 0.001 metres (1/25 th inch)

National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB): Statutory authority whose responsibilities include the acquisition of knowledge about the protection of mankind from radiation hazards, and the provision of information and advice to persons and organisations (including Government Departments) with responsibilities in the in relation to the protection from radiation hazards either of the community as a whole or of particular sections of the community.

Non-ionising radiation: Radiation which does not contain sufficient energy to alter the structure of human cells.

Personal Communications Network (PCN): A mobile system principally directed towards the hand portable, domestic user market and operating with digital technology at 1.8 GHz. The two main UK operators are One 2 One and Orange.

Picocell: Provides more localised coverage than a microcell.

Radiation: The emission or transfer of radiant energy as particles, electromagnetic waves, sound etc.

Radiocommunications agency: An executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry responsible for managing most non- military in the United Kingdom.

Radiofrequency radiation (RF radiation): Electromagnetic radiation used for telecommunications and found in the electromagnetic spectrum at longer wavelengths than infrared radiation.

Radio Waves: An electromagnetic wave of radio frequency which allows the transmission of signals at set frequencies over distance.

Wavelength: Distance in metres between two successive points of a periodic wave in the direction of propagation, in which the oscillation has the same phase. The lower the frequency of a wave the longer the wavelength.

25 APPENDIX 5

Operators’ Ten Commitments

The Ten Commitments are to:

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

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

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

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

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

6. 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.

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

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

9. begin financially supporting the Government’s independent scientific research programme on mobile communications health issues.

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

26 APPENDIX 6

Examples of Conditions imposed on planning permissions for telecommunications equipment.

The panel antennae and equipment cabins hereby permitted shall be retained for a limited period only, ...... on or before which date they shall be removed. Reason - To ensure a satisfactory standard of visual amenity in the light of changing technology.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out exactly and only in accordance with the drawings and other particulars forming part of the permission and there shall be no variation therefrom without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason - The details are considered to be material to the acceptability of the proposals, and for safeguarding the amenity of the area.

The telecommunications equipment cabins hereby approved shall be finished in a colour to match that of the existing plant room. Reason - To preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

It is understood that the telecommunications equipment hereby approved will be installed and maintained in full compliance with the present guidelines laid down by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing radiation Protection (ICNIRP) or any such guidelines or requirements that should replace these in the future; if it should be demonstrated that some or all of this equipment fails to meet these guidelines, then the equipment shall be removed within 28 days of the issue of written instruction by the local planning authority . Reason - In granting this permission, the local planning authority has had due regard to the material matter of potential public health risk, and fear of harm to public health, and this condition is considered necessary in order to provide adequate safeguards for public health in the short and longer term.

Full particulars of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Executive Director, Planning and Conservation, before the development hereby permitted commences and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details so approved:

(a) full details of the new GRP chimney stacks.

27 Reason - The particulars hereby reserved are considered to be material to the acceptability of the development, and the Local Planning Authority wishes to ensure that the details of the development are satisfactory.

28

APPENDIX 7

1.0 APPENDIX

1.1 Set out below are cases relevant to planning applications involving telecommunications equipment. All of the following cases were decided by the courts. Inspectors’ decisions have not been included as they are of no binding effect and are decided on the particular circumstances of each application.

2.0 NEWPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL -v- SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES (1998)

2.1 Whilst this case did not deal with telecommunications equipment, it was one of the cases which established the principle, cited in subsequent cases involving telecommunications equipment, that the fear and concerns held by members of the public may constitute material planning considerations. The Court of Appeal decided that the perceived fears of the public are material planning considerations even if such fears are not based on scientific fact, as long as those fears are genuinely held. The Court commented that a perceived fear could in appropriate but rare cases be a reason for refusing planning permission.

3.0 PHILLIPS -v- SECRETARY OF STATE, HAVANT BOROUGH COUNCIL AND HUTCHINSON 3G(UK) LTD (2003)

3.1 The Court held that public concerns can still be a material consideration even if the equipment satisfies the ICNIRP Guidelines. The Court also held that the consideration of alternative sites is an integral part of considering an application for the siting of telecommunications structures. The Judge went on to say that, as a matter of principle, if there were two alternative sites, each of which was otherwise acceptable in environmental terms, it would be open to the decision maker to refuse planning permission for one of those sites if the location of the mast on that site would give rise to substantially greater public concerns than its location on the alternative site. The question is, “Is this the best location?” To answer that question applicants must show that they have looked at alternative sites.

29 4.0 ST. LEGER-DAVEY AND HARRISON -v- FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE, WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL AND ORANGE PCS LTD LEE –v- SECRETARY OF STATE AND ORANGE PCS LTD (2004)

4.1 Judgment was given on 1 st March 2004 on two applications for judicial review which were heard together.

4.2 The first case involved the issue of alternative sites. The Telecommunications Act 1984 gave to operators the power to apply for a court order to site a mast without the agreement of the owner of the land. The court found that, in considering whether an alternative site was available, the Inspector did not have to carry out a detailed analysis of whether the telecommunications operator’s powers to site equipment without the agreement of the owner could be successfully exercised. He simply had to decide, on the balance of probabilities, what was likely to be the outcome of such an application to the court. The power is now contained in the Communications Act 2003 but the point remains that the decision maker does not have to carry out a detailed examination of whether or not the operator could successfully exercise the power to install equipment on a particular site.

4.3 The second case involved the approach that should be taken in attaching weight to public concerns. The Inspector in this case had taken into account how far the mast was to be from the nearest dwelling and whether it was further away from or nearer to houses than other approved telecommunication installations. The Court held that these were all matters which went to the weight which could properly be given to public concern about the health effects.

5.0 (1) T MOBILE (UK) LTD (2) HUTCHINSON 3G UK LTD (3) ORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

30 LTD v (1) FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE (2) HARROGATE BOROUGH COUNCIL (2004)

5.1 This is the most recent case with Judgment given on 23 June 2004.

5.2 On appeal the Inspector had refused planning permission to extend an existing mobile phone transmission station by building a mobile phone mast and headframe. He dismissed the appeal on the grounds that insufficient reassurances had been given that there could be no material harm, in terms of health concerns, to children in nearby schools. The phone operators appealed the decision to the High Court on the grounds firstly, that the Inspector had misconstrued PPG8 and secondly that he failed to give adequate reasons for his conclusion that insufficient reassurances about the health risks arising from the proposed mobile phone mast had been provided.

5.3 The Court held that the Inspector had misunderstood the guidance in PPG8. PPG8 dealt with actual rather than perceived risk. The proposed development met ICNIRP Guidelines and the applicant had given sufficient reassurance, both in letters to nearby schools and in the applications for planning permission, that there would be no harm, in terms of health concerns, to the living conditions of young children. The Inspector’s decision was, therefore, quashed and the appeal remitted for reconsideration.

5.4 The Inspectorate has permission to appeal this decision.

6.0 SUMMARY OF THE CASE LAW

6.1 The following principles have, therefore, been established by the court:-

• The genuine fears and concerns of the public are material planning considerations.

• Even if telecommunication equipment satisfies the ICNIRP guidelines, public concern can still be a material planning consideration.

• In exceptional cases public concern may be a reason for refusal of planning permission.

31 • Applicants must show that they have looked at alternative sites.

• The decision maker does not have to carry out a detailed analysis of whether the operator could exercise it powers to site equipment without the consent of the owner.

• It is for the decision maker to consider the weight to be attached to public concerns by taking into account factors such as the distance of the proposed equipment from the nearest dwelling.

• PPG8 is clear that no actual harm would be caused if equipment meets the ICNIRP guidelines.

July 2004

32