Agenda item

The Chairman welcomed the following Councillors (Cllr) and Officers:

·        Cllr John Hensley

·        Cllr Eddie Lavery

·        James Rodger, Head of Planning

·        Boe Williams-Obasi, Senior Manager, Corporate Landlord

Cllr Markham explained that the aim of this witness session was to focus on the Planning aspects in relation to Telecommunications masts and equipment.

Members asked the witnesses what they believe the issues were with respect to the Planning and what might be the solutions.

 Cllr Lavery advised that alleged health issues had no influence on planning decisions relating to telecommunication masts. He suggested that one of the growing concerns of residents was the fact that the equipments were getting larger and bulkier resulting in visual intrusion and clutter. The cabinets at 2metres wide and 6ft tall and adding more than one on the basement was becoming a growing concern, as these were appearing on pavements where residents were already struggling to walk on.

Cllr Lavery said that currently there was little evidence on applications to show that alternative sites had been investigated and that such evidence would be welcomed to show that other sites were being investigated. Evidence to show that more mast share and share of cabinet space would also be welcomed otherwise there would be an increase in the pavements continuing to be cluttered. Many of the cabinets appeared to be green and large and out of character on some high streets and suggested that it would be good to see cabinets that reflected and sensitive to the area. Cllr Lavery expressed grave concern that the size of the new cabinets were getting larger and larger.

Members asked whether choosing the design of the cabinet was something that the Planning Committees would consider.

Cllr Lavery said that there was a good range of alternative designs in the pre-application process where operators could be guided but there was no middle position at present, as submitted applications must be either accepted or turned down. There was no variation at present regardless of the point at which decisions on the applications were made.

During discussion the following points were made:

• The Planning Committees could not impose height restrictions on future developments, as this would be up to the operators.
• That the Planning Committees would welcome the cabinets being smaller and compact in terms of the visual impact on the street scene.
• The standard cabinets from BT should also be look at
• Each application was considered on its merits.
• Officers could include conditions as a standard item to allow for the easy removal of graffiti on cabinets.
• Cabinets could be made more secure by covering them in plastic seals
• Cable boxes were usually prone to vandalism as opposed to telecommunication boxes
• Noted that operators were aware of the need to sharing equipments but that this was all dependent financial resources.
• Only one appeal against a refusal had been made to date.
• Only about 6 applications a year to operate on Council land were received from operators.
• If the Council was to publicise the availability of Council land, there would be an increased interest.
• Only two masts operating on Council land have leases generating £10,000 per annum.
• That it would be helpful to a documented process for the number of telephones masts and cabinets in the conservation area as well as outside of the Conservation Areas.

Councillor John Hensley stated that there was a noticeable variance between the locations of telecommunications mast applications submitted to the Planning Committees. Applications to Central & South Committee tended to be for location at the top of buildings (as the south of the borough was more built up compared to the North of the borough). To take account of this, conditions for no antennas to be placed on buildings were now being imposed as consideration of the skyline was equally as important as the street scene.

James Rodger advised that an application rejected at the pre-application stage was responded to positively by the operator who had suggested that other sites would be looked at (Vadafone, O²).

The Committee asked what the recommended width should be on the pavement.

James explained that officers from the Highway Team would be better placed to respond to this issue and advised that all telecommunications applications were required to go through Highways before a decision could be made.

Councillor Hensley suggested that the Planning Department would need to give some guidelines, as at present, conditions were being imposed for when technology was no longer required to be removed, but there was currently no indication as to when it could be decided that it was no longer required.  There should be a drive to get companies to work with other outlets to utilise what already available equipments. Suggested that the Planning Committees could do nothing with applications submitted with bad designs.

 The Committee asked whether the Planning Committee had any input/say in design issues.

Cllr Lavery suggested that if Hillingdon was to take a radical stand, it would lead to appeals. However, if other local authorities were to be involved in taking a Pan-London approach, there would be a greater chance of success.

James Rodger advised that the Planning Department could produce guidelines that were more prescriptive, however, the new draft National Planning Framework provided zero guidance, resulting in a vacuum.

Cllr Hensley said that one of the points that should be included in the Guidelines was the recommendation that the Council would expect operators to give reasons why in their opinion site coverage in suggested areas were not acceptable (site selection and mast sharing issues).  

Boe Williams-Obasi explained that Corporate Landlord was tasked with managing the land, properties and assets owned by Council and were managed as a corporate resource. This was achieved with expertise from architects, and surveyors.  It was noted that the process for reviewing assets was through the property governance meeting held once a month with

Cllr Bianco, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Business Services. The idea of what to put forward to be reported to Cabinet was established at these meetings.

The Committee noted that as the Council owned lands and buildings, operators may request to place masts on top of Council owned properties for a rental fee. The Committee was concerned that Corporate Landlord might agree without planning consideration.

Boe advised that she was aware of only one such agreement. She suggested that a tighter procedure could be put in place. It was noted that currently, any request would result in Corporate Landlord investigating who owned the land and establishing what the future plans were for that land.  If Corporate Landlord was to receive plans for the installation of telecommunication masts, it would not want the value of the houses on the land to be affected.

The meeting was informed that leases had a security of tenure and once agreed, tended to stay.  One of the biggest issues highlighted was that under the Council Policy, was the issue of a lease to a provider that was inside the Acts. On the other hand, for leases offered outside of the Acts would result in the Statutory Power acting in the operators favour.

From the point of view of Corporate Landlord, it was noted that the main point of assessment would be in focusing on the potential for that land, the ‘future proof’ for that land and how much money would be derived from the operator. With this area not being an open market and one that was a very controlled market, it was suggested that it would be rather difficult to extract the actual value in pound for a year. The meeting heard that any decision to allow operators to operate from Council land would need to be one that would give value for money. It was noted that in theory, the operator would need an agreement in principle to lease a land from the Council in order to be able to operate.  

James Rodger suggested that Corporate Landlord have the opportunity to engage with operators at the Annual Roll-out meeting with the Planning Department, where operators discuss advanced plans and areas where they had siting problems. At the meeting, usually held in January, operators ask the Council to indicate how their proposed sites where traffic lighted and asked officers to give them an idea of suitable sites.

It was noted that BT did not attend this meeting in respect of their sites.

Boe advised that it was worth considering what message that the Council wished to send out as in her opinion, it would be better not to have masts on site as more revenue could be gained from developments than masts.

The Committee noted that the main issue was that relating to the cabinets and these did not fall under Corporate Landlord.  Also established was that the cabinets require planning permission only if sited in a conservation area.

Members asked whether there was any way that location of cabinets could be controlled.

James Rodger advised that the Draft National Policy Framework was telecommunication (Article 4 )

The Committee requested that officers should respond to Draft National Policy Framework. That the Council should develop its own Policy to fill the gaps from the framework.