by Saleem Shamash
To operate the expanding range of new technology, sophisticated telecommunications networks have been established requiring aerials, microwave dishes, optical fibre cables, supporting structures and towers, and associated equipment buildings. Some of this development is permitted by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Order) 1988; in particular, Part 24 grants various rights to the licensed telecommunications code system operators such as Cellnet and British Telecom. However, these permitted development rights (which are due to be reviewed) do not by any means meet all the needs of telecommunications operators, especially for large radio towers over 15m in height which are often required in rural areas.
Many local planning authorities do not have specific policies relating to telecommunications development to form a basis for development control, although the vacuum is filled by national guidance in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Note No 8: Telecommunications. The permitted development rights and PPG8 recognise the importance of telecommunications to the economy and clearly seek to encourage its development, although the difficult task of balancing the sometimes competing objectives of modern technology and the desirability of protecting the environment is appreciated.
Large radio towers can be very intrusive, and local planning authorities are often understandably concerned, especially when development is proposed in designated green belt or areas of outstanding natural beauty. The benefits of modern telecommunications to a specific area are not usually tangible, and in these circumstances authorities are often reluctant to place more weight on what they sometimes perceive as more national objectives.
As these systems expand and more facilities are demanded, the hostility from local planning authorities increases. By contrast, the Government’s commitment to modern telecommunications is such that three new licences have recently been issued to separate operators for new networks, and the recent discussion paper, Competition and Choice: Telecommunications Policy for the 1990s, suggests that the duopoly enjoyed by British Telecom and Mercury be ended. These factors will only exacerbate the anxieties of local planning authorities.
Thus, telecommunications operators seeking to bring forward large developments are often made to walk a difficult planning tightrope because the balance to be struck with environmental considerations can be fine. A refusal of planning permission obviously adds to delay and cost (both real and opportunity) to the operator. If a local planning authority is to be persuaded to grant planning permission — or if necessary a good case to be made on appeal — it is important for operators to adopt strategies on site selection that comply with PPG8 criteria.
During the past year or so, the telecommunications team in Drivers Jonas’ planning and development section has secured planning permission on appeal for 12 proposals for large radio towers in rural locations which have included green belt and AONBs. The appeal decisions which we have received endorse the Government’s clear commitment towards telecommunications set out in PPG8, and provide a good insight into how that guidance is applied.
Owing to the special operational needs and technical problems of this type of development the Government is often prepared to allow it as an exception to the usual policies of restraint which apply in sensitive areas. However, this is generally subject to certain points being satisfied. In our experience, if a telecommunications operator fails in this, then it will be difficult to justify a proposal either on application or appeal.
In addition to emphasising the merits of good modern telecommunications, the following points should be demonstrated in seeking planning permission for large radio towers. First, if the special operational needs and technical problems are to be understood, the system used by the operator must be explained in layman’s terms: the particular proposal should also be explained in the context of the operators’ existing or establishing network. Technical jargon and overly complex explanations should be avoided — they can confuse rather than clarify.
As the Government clearly wishes to avoid the unnecessary proliferation of large radio towers it should also be demonstrated that there are no existing facilities or other high structures upon which the aerials or dishes can be located and that a new radio tower is in fact essential. In practice, this means the operator either has to demonstrate that no such structures exist or that, if they do, they are unsuitable for technical reasons and/or unavailable. Again, if an existing facility is deemed to be technically unsuitable then proper and comprehensible reasons must be given.
Local planning authorities sometimes refuse planning permission for new large radio towers because they consider that the operator should share a facility which may be technically suitable, but which is in the ownership of an unco-operative third party over whom the operator has no control. We were involved in such a case recently where the third party was prepared to site share, but only on excessive and unreasonable terms. The local planning authority in question took the view that this situation was a problem for the operator and if they really wanted a facility they would have to meet the terms. The authority accordingly refused planning permission for a new facility proposed nearby.
On appeal, however, the inspector allowed the new facility, commenting that he was satisfied that the appellants had explored the possibility of sharing in accordance with PPG8 guidance. The inspector clearly believed that the onus on the operator was only reasonably to explore the possibility of site sharing and accepted that if a third party was unwilling to site share, either in principle or on reasonable terms, that was not the fault of the operator, and not a sufficient ground for refusing permission.
In the case of environmentally sensitive areas it is important to demonstrate that those sites selected strike a good balance between environmental and technical considerations and that there are no other obviously less sensitive sites upon which the operator can also reasonably locate. Thus the operator should identify those sites which offer the most natural screening, or benefit from existing large pylons, or are away from settlements or sensitive viewpoints.
Finally, if the local planning authority is hostile towards a proposal it is important to try to understand their objections, as there may be scope for agreeing an alternative site. An authority which takes an unreasonable stance, objecting to all telecommunications development in principle, will have less chance of having its objections upheld at appeal than an authority that has only detailed siting concerns which may be accepted by an inspector.
If these basic principles are followed it is our experience that local planning authorities are more likely to grant planning permission and, if they do not, the prospects of achieving consent on appeal are considerably enhanced. With all the existing operators continuing to expand and improve their services, and new operators entering into the field, these considerations are factors which will assume increasing importance.
Companies who adopt sensible planning strategies will be able to establish and improve their networks, will get on site first, and will be best placed to sell an effective service to the public.
