Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Executive held on 07/03/2006
Minutes of the Meeting of the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 28th November 2005




ANNEXE 1

MINUTES of the MEETING of the ENVIRONMENT AND LEISURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE held on 28TH NOVEMBER 2005

(To be read in conjunction with the Agenda for the Meeting)
* Mr J R Sandy (Chairman) *Mrs S R Jacobs
Mrs M V M Hunt (Vice Chairman) *Dr P M Marriott
* Mr M H W Band *Mrs P N Mitchell
*Dr J F A Blowers *Mr J M Savage
*Mr M W Byham *Mrs J A Slyfield
Mr R D FrostMs M Taylor
* Mr P D Harmer Mr A E B Taylor-Smith
Mrs P Hibbert Mr R C Terry
Mrs L S R Hodgson
* Present

Mr B A Ellis and Mrs A E Mansell attended as substitutes.


126. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

127. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

No personal interests were declared at the meeting.

128. SPECIAL HEARING INTO ISSUES REGARDING MOBILE PHONE TECHNOLOGY

The Chairman explained the purpose of the meeting which was to gather information to help with policy formulation about mobile phone technology and the siting of mobile phone masts. He welcomed members of the public and asked them to complete and return the feedback forms if they wanted to contribute to the review. This information would be used to help compile a report to be discussed by the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Committee then received six oral presentations of twenty minutes each from the interested parties and representative bodies detailed below.

i) Ian Ellis, Consultant Planner, Waverley Borough Council

Representing the Council, Ian Ellis explained that national policy supported and encouraged the development of the telecommunications network and that there was a presumption in favour of it, subject to tests set out in PPG8 and Waverley’s own Policy D11, together with the Industry’s 10 commitments.

A map of the sites of mobile phone masts in the Borough was tabled and it was explained that permission would generally be granted subject to various considerations including that the siting, height and design had no material adverse impact. He went on to explain that planning permission would be required in any event if the development was in a AONB, Conservation Area or Site of Special Scientific Interest.
.
ii) Elaine Bowyer, Surrey Social and Market Research (SSMR)
iii) Nicola Davies, Mobile Operators Association Improved consultation with communities
Detailed consultation with planners
More transparency in site sharing
Workshops for local authorities and planning officers
Site database at www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk
Network International Commission for Non Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) public exposure compliance
ICNIRP certificate
Prompt response to enquiries
Scientific research programme
Standard supplementary documentation for all planning applications

iv) Tony Machen, Manor Gardens Action Group
v) Andy Davidson, TETRA Watch vi) Dr Mike Clark, Health Protection Agency (Formerly NRPB)
129. Members of the Committee were invited to put questions to the speakers:- Do Local Planning Authorities need to take into account other masts in the area when considering a mobile phone mast application? How will the Telecommunications Planning Control Bill second reading in March affect the way we deal with planning applications?
Has any basic research been conducted to establish whether different frequencies might affect the proteins which control cell replication? Is it reasonable to suppose some people might be more susceptible to different frequencies?
Will the use of mobile phones and siting of masts be a health concern in the long term?
If humans have different susceptibilities, then should we have a moratorium on expansion until research has been done?
Are the various mobile phone companies communicating to achieve joint sites to locate these masts away from schools and housing? What about the long term expansion?
Is BT still looking at a system known as ‘Open City’ for all five operators to share?
What about non-health concerns, for example environmental and visual impact? And what about areas of bad coverage?
130. The Chairman asked non ELOS Members for their questions:- There is enormous commercial pressure in the investment in 3G – how is the risk managed? Councillors have often felt unable to be involved in consultation in the past because of ethical framework constraints.
131. The Chairman thanked the speakers for their presentations and the officers for their work in organising the meeting. He said a report would now be drawn up and discussed at the next meeting on 17th January 2005.*

The meeting concluded at 9.37pm


Comms/O&S3/minutes28-12-05/65.doc