Stunell Pushes Bill for Planning Controls on Mobile Phone Masts

6.10.25pm GMT Mon 6th Mar 2006

Andrew next to the controversial mast at Romiley Station

This week, Hazel Grove MP, Andrew Stunell, argued in Parliament for tighter planning control for mobile phone masts. Mr Stunell introduced his Telecommunication Masts (Planning Control) Bill last year, but the debate was cut short by the General Election. Now Mr Stunell is championing the Bill for a second time.

Local MP, Andrew Stunell told Parliament:

"Every Member of Parliament to whom I have ever spoken about phone masts has a significant case load of difficult and aggravating planning consents and disputes about the installation of masts. The idea that the mobile phone industry needs special help from the planning system is outdated and wrong.

"The problem goes back to the Telecommunications Act 1984, which exempted masts from planning rules and removed health aspects from consideration."

Mr Stunell told Parliament of how the inadequate planning rules had affected schools and areas in Stockport:

"A secondary school in my area, Marple Hall, agreed to a mast being placed on its property in the early days of telecommunications masts. Following a fair amount of protest from parents and others in the neighbourhood, the school rescinded its decision, only to find that the contract that it had signed did not entitle it to have the mast removed.

"It had signed away its rights to such an extent that the company could install any replacement mast that it chose, and could carry out any repairs, maintenance or alterations that it wished to undertake. In fact, the school had completely forgone its property rights.

"In another case in my constituency, a mast was alleged to be less than 15 m high and thus not to require permission. Again there were bitter objections. Someone went to the trouble of measuring the mast, which proved to be not less than 15 m high, but 16 m high. The local authority took action against the company for installing a mast above the permitted height, on valid planning grounds. Those grounds were challenged by the company. The Secretary of State's inspector upheld the council's decision, and ordered that the mast be removed. The company's response was very straightforward: it said "We will take the 16 m mast down, cut 1 m off and put it back." It is that sort of response—waving two fingers at the law and the intention of the law—that has so deeply angered Members and their constituents."

The Government announced that it opposed the Bill, which is now unlikely to make further progress.

ENDS

Notes to Editors

1. The debate can be read at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060303/debtext/60303-17.htm#60303-17_spnew1