Bham SCI 5/06 · Telecommunications development: mobile phone infrastructure 9 Not all categories of telecommunications equipment require an application for full planning permission,

birmingham’s local development frameworktheBirminghamplan

Telecommunications development:mobile phone infrastructure

Supplementary Planning Document

march2008


Telecommunications development:mobile phone infrastructure


march2008

www.birmingham.gov.uk/mobilenetwork

Telecommunications development: mobile phone infrastructure

Contents

Purpose of the supplementary planning guidance

Policy context

Categories of telecommunicationsdevelopment

1

2

page 5

page 7

page 9

3

Detailed guidance: locational considerations

Detailed guidance: siting considerations

Detailed guidance: design and appearance considerations

4

5

page 10

page 12

page 13

6


3

Health considerations and theperception of harm

Information required to supportan application

Publicity and information

7

8

page 15

page 16

page 189

Council owned sites

Contacts for further information

Appendix - Categories oftelecommunications developmentand the need for planning permission

10

11

page 19

page 20

page 21


4

Telecommunications mast disguised as a tree - Sutton Coldfield

Birmingham City Council recognises that modernand comprehensive telecommunications systemsare an essential element in the life of thecommunity and the national and local economy andnational security. The technology is growing rapidlyand consequently there is an increasing demandfrom operators for the provision oftelecommunications infrastructure such as satellitedishes, radio antennae, masts, switching and basestations. It is recognised that major switchingstations significantly contribute to the delivery ofthe telecoms networks and there is a need toconsider their operation. This may be a materialconsideration when considering planningapplications in adjacent properties.

Against the need for this infrastructure must bebalanced the potential adverse effects it may haveon the quality of the environment of Birminghamwhether in the city centre, residential suburbs,open spaces or in sensitive areas such asconservation areas.

It is recognised that some telecommunicationproposals can generate considerable local concern.Criticism of the planning system within which theCity Council has to operate is not unknown. The‘prior approval’ procedure provides for certaintypes of telecommunications infrastructure to beconsidered differently to other types of planningapplications and the public find this approachconfusing.

Against this, it is also acknowledged that thetelecommunications industry is committed toworking with government and local planningauthorities by signing up to codes of practice thatrequire agreed standards to be followed in respectof pre-application discussions and consultation onproposals. The industry is also responding throughthe provision of innovative design solutions forminimising or camouflaging the visual impact of theequipment.

This Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) isintended to provide guidance to the public,licensed telecommunications operators andplanners on the process for the control oftelecommunications development and for its sitingand appearance within Birmingham. It is beingprepared within the Council’s formal LocalDevelopment Framework and is subject to theregulations relating to the preparation of SPDs. Itwill be a material consideration in the determinationof planning applications for telecommunicationsproposals.

This SPD replaces the Supplementary PlanningGuidance (DC24) referred to in the BirminghamUnitary Development Plan policy ontelecommunications. The earlier guidance wasadopted by the City Council in 2002 followingextensive public consultation. This SPD updatesthat guidance to reflect changes in the detailedwording of the telecommunications policy in theUDP as adopted in 2005. It also has regard to adetailed report by the City Council on the review ofthe siting of telecommunications equipment onCouncil owned land and premises1 so far as it ismaterial to planning considerations.

Between the start of 2002 and the end of 2006 inBirmingham, there have been some 349applications requiring prior approval or full planningpermission for telecommunications proposals. Ofthese 200 were refused planning permission. Therewere some 83 determinations that prior approvalwas not required and 674 telecommunicationlicense notifications. The level of activity generallyreflects the continuing development of thetelecommunications network to meet therequirements of 3G (Third Generation Mobile). All3G operators had license requirements to build outa network covering 80% of the population by 2007.


5

Purpose of the supplementary planning guidance1

Over the same period (2002-2006), there were 84appeals determined of which 54% were allowed bythe Planning Inspectorate. Nationally, in 2005/06,53% of telecommunication appeals were allowed(although only about one third of all types ofappeals are generally successful)2. This indicatesthat the City Council’s performance fortelecommunications appeals does not differ fromthe national position to any significant extent.Notwithstanding this, the Council believes that itshould have greater discretion to determine matterslocally to reflect issues such as siting, appearanceand design and therefore would wish to move to aposition where a higher proportion of appealsagainst refusals for telecommunications proposalsare dismissed. It is anticipated that this clearersupplementary guidance will contribute towardsachieving this.


61 Review of the Siting of Telecommunications Equipment on Councilowned land and premises, Report of the Co-ordinating Overview andScrutiny Committee to Birmingham City Council 5 July 20052 Table 7.1 Planning Inspectorate Statistical Report 2005/06: England

Example of a slimline mast in amixed commercial/residential area


7

Policy context2

This guidance has been prepared within thecontext of published national and local planningpolicy and advice.

Planning Policy Guidance 8:Telecommunications3 sets out the Government’snational policies on telecommunicationsdevelopment which is stated as being to facilitatethe growth of new and existing telecommunicationssystems whilst keeping the environmental impact toa minimum. Key aspects of the PPG are as follows:

The significance of the proposal as part of thenational network is material and operators mayhave to provide evidence regarding the need forthe development.

Annual discussions between operators and localplanning authorities (LPA) on their rollout plansare encouraged.

Pre-application discussions with the LPA areencouraged and, where a mast is to be installedclose to a school, the operator should discuss theproposal with the school prior to submitting anapplication.

LPAs should carry out extra publicity beyond thestatutory requirements.

Protection from visual intrusion and theimplications for subsequent network connectionsare important in determining applications.

LPAs and operators should liaise to find theoptimum environmental and network solutions.

Telecommunications development is likely to beinappropriate in the Green Belt unless it maintainsopenness.

Mast sharing is encouraged and use should bemade of existing buildings and structures.

LPAs are encouraged to make local authorityowned property available to operators.

Sympathetic design, camouflage screening andplanting are encouraged, together with innovativedesign solutions in terms of structures andapparatus, colour and materials.

Whilst health considerations and public concerncan be material considerations in determiningapplications for planning permission or for priorapproval, the Government does not believe thatthe planning system should determine healthsafeguards. Having considered the recommendedprecautionary approach advocated in the StewartReport of May 20004, the Government considersthat if a mobile phone base station meets theInternational Commission on Non-IonizingRadiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines forpublic exposure it should not be necessary forthe LPA to consider further the health aspectsand concerns about them. LPAs should notimplement their own precautionary policies forexample by insisting on minimum distancesbetween new telecommunications developmentand existing development.

LPAs should require developers of new housing,offices and industrial estates to consider how thetelecommunications needs of occupiers will bemet.

The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy5

states at Policy PA12 on Birmingham’s Role as aWorld City:

Birmingham should continue to be developed as a

major regional capital of European and international

standing by providing further development

opportunities and supporting infrastructure, including

telecommunication…

Policies QE3, QE4 and QE5 promote the protectionor creation and enhancement of the historic andbuilt environment and the urban green spacenetworks.

The Birmingham Plan6 (the City’s UnitaryDevelopment Plan) contains the following policy inrespect of telecommunications at paragraph 8.55:

It is recognised that modern and comprehensive

telecommunications systems are an essential

element in the life of the local community and the

economy of the city. In assessing applications for

telecommunications equipment, account will be

taken of the impact of radio masts, antennae and

ancillary structures on existing landscape features,

buildings and the outlook from neighbouring

properties.

Within the City, there are locations that are

considered more sensitive than others for the siting

of telecommunications equipment. Sensitive

locations include listed buildings and conservation

areas, historic parks and gardens, the Green Belt

and locations within and adjacent to the grounds of

education and health institutions.

Telecommunications equipment will only be

acceptable in sensitive areas if the applicants are

able to demonstrate that there is no other suitable

location. The City Council will also seek to

encourage telecommunications operators to locate

new equipment away from residential areas and,

where they are of high quality, areas of open space,

wherever possible. Where applications are submitted

in such areas, the City Council will require them to

be accompanied by evidence confirming that no

reasonable alternatives exist. In all cases, equipment

should be designed to minimise its impact on the

visual amenity of the area.

Operators will be expected to share masts and sites

wherever this is desirable. Telecommunications

equipment sited on buildings should be sited to

minimise obtrusiveness, for example by the use of

permeable and opaque screens. Ground based

equipment should be sited to take maximum

advantage of backdrops to buildings and other

screening opportunities. In assessing obtrusiveness,

views from neighbouring properties and the street

will be considered. Detailed guidance on the siting,

location and design of telecommunications

equipment is contained in Supplementary Planning

Guidance (DC24).

Developers and operators will be expected to have

regard to the Government’s Telecommunications

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG8) and any other

advice published by the Government.

The Environment Chapter of the Birmingham Plancontains a policy at paragraph 3.8 stating the needto protect and enhance what is good in the City’senvironment. Paragraph 3.10 states that proposalsthat would have an adverse effect on the quality ofthe built environment will not normally be allowed.Other policies deal with the need to protect thenatural environment and Green Belt and theappearance and setting of listed buildings andconservation areas.

Code of Best Practice on Mobile PhoneNetwork Development7 was published in 2002 asa result of co-operative working between themobile phone industry, central and localgovernment. The Code reflects and builds on thenational guidance in PPG8 and provides practicaladvice on the siting and design oftelecommunications development in order toreduce environmental impact and visual intrusion. Itencourages a standardised approach forconsidering telecommunications development. TheCode applies to all mast and antennaedevelopment (whether permitted development orotherwise) by mobile phone network operators.


8

3 Planning Policy Guidance 8: Telecommunications, ODPM, August 2001

4 Mobile Phones and Health, Independant Expert Group on MobilePhones, (The Stewart Report) May 20005 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy, ODPM, June 20046 Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, Birmingham City Council,

October 20057 Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development,

ODPM, 2002


9

Not all categories of telecommunicationsequipment require an application for full planningpermission, either because they do not constitute‘development’ or they benefit from ‘permitteddevelopment’ rights, and are in some cases subjectto prior approval and compliance with limitations orrestrictions.

There are four categories of telecommunicationsdevelopment for planning purposes:

Telecommunications equipment which is deminimis and does not constitute development.

Telecommunications development which ispermitted development but is not of a size ornumber requiring either a full planning applicationor prior approval application.

Telecommunications development which ispermitted development but subject to priorapproval of the LPA in respect of siting andappearance7.

Telecommunications equipment and individualbuildings containing telecommunicationsequipment requiring an application for fullplanning permission.

The appendix to this SPD provides a more detaileddescription of these categories.

Categories of telecommunications development3

7 Part 24, Schedule 2 Town and Country Planning (General PermittedDevelopment) Order 2005


10

The UDP telecommunications policy recognisesthat within the city there are locations that areconsidered more sensitive than others for the sitingof telecommunications equipment. Conversely,there will be areas that are less sensitive to suchproposals. Another category includes residentialareas and open spaces of high quality where theCouncil will encourage operators to avoid locatingtelecommunications infrastructure unless there areno reasonable alternatives.

A. The more sensitive locations

In the more sensitive areas within the city,telecommunications equipment will only beaccepted if it is demonstrated that there are noother suitable locations and if the equipment hasbeen designed to minimise its impact on the visualamenity of the area, including public access routes.Equipment including masts and ancillary equipmentand fencing should respect the setting through theuse of appropriate design and landscaping. Thesemore sensitive locations are:

Listed buildings, their curtilage and setting –the Council is required to have “special regard” tothe desirability of preserving a listed building orits setting or any features of special architecturalor historic interest which it possesses. Proposalswill be resisted where the location andappearance of a mast or other equipment wouldadversely affect the setting or appearance of alisted building. This guidance relates both tobuildings on the statutory list and to those thathave been included in Birmingham’s Local List ofbuildings of architectural interest. Innovativesolutions from operators will be necessary tomake proposals acceptable but in general termsit would be best to avoid proposals involvinglisted buildings wherever possible.

Conservation areas and areas adjacent to aconservation area – the Council has a duty topay special attention to the desirability ofpreserving or enhancing the character orappearance of a conservation area. Proposed

telecommunications equipment located within oradjacent to a conservation area that wouldadversely affect its character or appearance willbe resisted.

Historic parks and gardens – the guidanceseeks to protect historic parks and gardens.These are either included in the Register ofHistoric Parks and Gardens for Birmingham or, ifthey have special local significance, have beenincluded in the City’s Local List.

Education and health institutions – locationswithin or adjacent to the grounds of education orhealth institutions will only be acceptable wherethe applicant can demonstrate compliance withthe precautionary approach adopted in PPG8 forthe location of equipment and that more suitablealternative sites are not available. The applicantwill be expected to demonstrate the agreementof the school, parents and relevant healthinstitution for locations within the grounds andpass on any consultation comments relating totheir proposals both for those within and thoseadjacent to the grounds.

Other sensitive areas - these include sites in theGreen Belt, Sites of Importance to NatureConservation (SINCS), Sites of Local Importancefor Nature Conservation (SLINCS), Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest (SSSI), ScheduledAncient Monuments and other archaeologicalremains.

B. Residential areas and high quality openspaces

Residential areas – areas that are predominantlyresidential can be very sensitive from the point ofview of residents who may perceive the installationof telecommunications equipment to be asignificant visual intrusion if they are close to andvisible from within their homes or from theirgardens. They can cause residents undue concern

Detailed guidance: locational considerations4

8 Mobile Phones and Health, Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, (The Stewart Report) May 2000


11

about perceived health effects. Accordingly,residential areas should be avoided, particularlylocations immediately in front of habitable roomwindows wherever possible, in favour of lesssensitive locations. Where applications aresubmitted in such areas, the City Council willrequire them to be accompanied by evidenceconfirming that no reasonable alternatives exist. Inall cases, equipment should be designed tominimise its impact on the visual amenity of thearea.

High Quality Open Spaces – telecommunicationsoperators should avoid proposals in areas of openspace of high quality. The UDP defines open spaceas all open land of recreational or public value,including playing fields, which primarily consists ofnatural elements such as trees, grass and water. Itmay or may not have free public access. For thepurpose of this guidance, high quality open spaceis regarded as including those areas primarilyhaving a high amenity value within a locality butthey may also have attributes that distinguish themfrom other areas of open space such as the qualityof the maintenance regime; their contribution to thequality of life of the local community throughhistorical or other association or through the natureand functioning of their use; or, they may form partof a larger open space network where qualityimprovements are proposed. This includes canaland river corridors, and curtilages where they formhigh quality open space. Again, where applicationsare submitted in such areas, the City Council willrequire them to be accompanied by evidenceconfirming that no reasonable alternatives exist andequipment should be designed to minimise itsimpact on the visual amenity of the area. Noticeshould also be taken of the need to comply withthe legislation protecting certain species. Whereproposals involve development on playing fields,plans must define the extent of the playing fieldsand areas around the sports pitches to be affectedby the development.

C. The less sensitive locations

Unless a site is in one of the defined ‘moresensitive areas’ or in a residential area or area ofhigh quality open space, it will be in an area wherethe installation of telecommunications equipment ismore likely to be acceptable. These areas are:

Existing ground based masts and sites specificallydeveloped for telecommunications.

Within commercial and industrial areas (usuallyaway from the boundary) subject to satisfactoryscreening and backdrop against buildings andskyline from neighbouring uses.

Locations on commercial/mixed use buildingsprovided the equipment has been located,designed or screened to minimise obtrusivenessagainst the skyline.

Locations in front of community premises excepteducation and health uses.

New tall buildings specifically designed toincorporate telecommunications equipmentthrough the use, for example, of screens anddisguise.

Existing plant and other structures such aselectricity pylons, floodlights, CCTV camera polesand multi-storey car parks subject to theequipment being of appropriate size and colour.These could include structures purpose built ordesigned to disguise the installation oftelecommunications equipment such as storagesilos in industrial areas and imitation chimneys.

Sites substantially screened by trees or by thelandscape.

At large road intersections, particularly islands,where they can be located away from residentialand education buildings.

Adjacent to frontages with open space, so longas it is not high quality.

The most obvious way to address the visual impactof telecommunication development is to site it insuch a way that it blends into or is hidden byexisting landscape or cityscape. Operators will beexpected to justify their site in terms of the factors,some of which are identified in PPG8, that may berelevant to siting:

The effect on the skyline or horizon.

The site when observed from any side.

The height of the site in relation to surroundingland.

The site in relation to existing masts, structures orbuildings.

The existence of topographical features andnatural vegetation.

The site in relation to residential property.

The site in relation to areas designated locally fortheir scenic or conservation value and buildingsof a historic or traditional character.

It is acknowledged that one of the factors that willaffect the siting and design of telecommunicationsinfrastructure will be the technological constraintsfaced by the operators. However, in order to justifya proposal in the sensitive parts of the city, theCouncil will need to be satisfied that all potentialsites have been examined. The alternatives couldinclude:

Mast-sharing - two or more operators may beable to share the same mast. Where this leads toan increase in height of the mast or monopole orit becomes more visually intrusive as a result, theproposal will need to be assessed in the contextof whether mast sharing provides the optimumenvironmental solution.

Site sharing - this could lead to two or moremasts on the same site. Depending on the designand height of the masts, they could appearobtrusive, particularly within urban areas. The sitewould need to be adequately screened or beobscured from the surrounding area.

Use of existing buildings, structures or pylons- in a city such as Birmingham where there is arelatively high number of tall buildings andstructures, making use of them fortelecommunications infrastructure is oftenpreferable in terms of reducing visual impact thanthe construction of freestanding ground basedmasts. Additionally, the use of camouflage canoften render some installations to be virtuallyunnoticeable from street level.

The very nature of major telecommunicationsinstallations means that their appearance may notbe able to be manipulated in response to theirimmediate environment, and it may not be practicalto mitigate their visual impact by landscaping orscreening within compounds. There is more scopewith smaller structures but in either case it isimperative that alternatives are considered and theoption with the least visual impact that iscompatible with operational requirements bepursued in preference to alternatives that could bemore damaging environmentally.

Detailed guidance: siting considerations5


12

Antennae discretely designed as chimney pots


13

All telecommunications proposals should bedesigned to minimise visual impact and intrusion.The decision to propose ground based or buildingbased masts, antennae and cabins will depend onthe respective impact that the proposal will have onvisual amenity, local character, skyline andneighbouring uses.

Ground based masts

Make the most of existing screening -opportunities should be taken to use existingscreening or backdrop to buildings to reduce theimpact of development. Masts, antennae andcabins are most prominent when sited in openlocations when viewed against the skyline andopen land. Such locations should be avoided, asthey are unlikely to be acceptable. Locations inareas of high quality open space, or proposalsresulting in the loss of public open space withoutadequate replacement, are unlikely to beacceptable.

Landscaping and planting – it is recognisedthat because of the heights of masts, it will notbe possible to screen them completely throughtree planting. However, landscaping and plantingcan make a significant contribution to reducingthe impact of masts and equipment principally intwo ways:

1 By identifying critical viewpoints and planting ata distance from the site so that the visualintrusion of the mast is reduced. This may requireentering into agreements with other landownersto facilitate this.

2 By landscaping and planting around the basestation compound to minimise visual impactcloser to the site. Sufficient land should beincluded within the proposal to enable this to beachieved.

Where landscaping and planting is carried out,adequate maintenance should be provided for andin the event of failure of shrubs or trees, theseshould be replaced during the next plantingseason.

Street locations – masts and equipment locatedin the street will be discouraged. Locations onappropriate commercial buildings where theyexist are generally preferred in order to reduceclutter in the street. Where street based mastsare the only option, they should be similar incharacter and appearance with existing streetfurniture and of a slim-line design, such as the‘streetworks’ monopoles. They should not beprominent in the street scene or add to clutterand should appear as an unobtrusive addition.Masts designed or disguised for dual use as alamppost or other street furniture role such as acolumn to support CCTV cameras may beappropriate.

Existing trees – where possible, sites shouldhave a backdrop of trees to reduce visualcontrast.

Residential areas – where there is no alternativeto a location in a residential area, equipmentshould be sited sensitively, avoid being intrusiveand should not be sited immediately in front ofhabitable room windows.

Cabins/cabinets in streets – the impact ofcabins/cabinets or other equipment housingwithin the public realm should be minimised. Theymust comply with City Council guidelines on theinstallation of street furniture. They should be ofno greater size than is necessary to reflect theoperational needs of the site and should bedesigned and use colour to match other streetequipment. They should be treated and designedto reduce opportunities for vandalism and graffiti.In certain locations cabinets in their own rightcan appear to be particularly intrusive andpreclude the site being acceptable.

Detailed guidance: design andappearance considerations

6

Compounds - these should be no larger thanrequired for the plant and equipment needed toserve the site. They are unlikely to be locatedoutside industrial or rural areas. Wherever theyare proposed they should be unobtrusive and nothave an adverse impact on the character of thearea. The style and design of perimeter fencingshould be appropriate to the location. In certainlocations a perimeter wall or solid screen inappropriate materials may be a better way toscreen off views into the compound. If vehicularaccess onto the public highway is required thisshould be constructed such that normal highwaysafety standards are not compromised.

Installations on existing buildings andstructures

Antennae and related equipment on existingbuildings and structures will often be moreappropriate alternatives to establishing a newground based mast, particularly where therewould be little significant effect on theappearance of the building or structure andwould not result in an unacceptable level of visualintrusion to adjoining properties.

The height, scale and architectural style of abuilding or structure will significantly influencethe design of equipment used on it. In usingexisting buildings or structures, operators shouldbear in mind structural limitations that mayrestrict their use as potential sites.

Telecommunications equipment should be sitedand positioned to minimise the obtrusivenessagainst the skyline including views fromneighbouring properties and the street.Screening and backdrop opportunities should bemaximised. Supporting frames should be belowparapet level where possible.

Equipment including cable trays and feeds,should wherever possible, be disguised, forexample, through the use of permeable andopaque screens. Existing structures should beused rather than new stub masts.

When placing equipment on buildings orstructures, they should use clean lines andmaintain symmetry and be painted to correspondwith the background or to reduce contrast.

Whilst the sharing of buildings and structures bydifferent operators is encouraged, theaccumulation of equipment on roofs of buildingsleading to clutter that may be visible from thestreet or from nearby buildings must be avoided.

In order to control telecommunications apparatuson new floodlighting and CCTV columns locatedon sites adjoining residential property,telecommunication permitted development rightsmay be withdrawn by condition on the planningpermission for the floodlights or CCTV.

Cabins/cabinets or other equipment housingshould be as small as possible. Where they arelikely to be obtrusive features on the rooftop,consideration should be given to brick orrendered finish to the cabin or external materialsthat match or blend with other roof topstructures. Alternatively, siting within the buildingor at ground level in screened or unobtrusivelocations, such as to the rear of a building or in acar park, may be preferable.

Camouflaging and disguising equipment

The Code of Best Practice highlights that thedevelopment of technology has led to techniquesfor disguising and camouflagingtelecommunications equipment. This is seen inmore recent masts and equipment, which arefrequently able to blend into their surroundings farmore effectively than some of the older equipment.Examples of the successful concealment ofantennae include features such as flagpoles, streetlampposts, signs and church towers. The use ofGRP, which can be moulded into any shape andcoloured appropriately, can be used to simulatemasonry and stone features such as chimneys andplinths. Masts have also been designed as treesalthough they need very careful design and sitingto be effective. Antennae have also beenincorporated in commissioned works of art.

The Council will work with operators to explore themerits of camouflaging telecommunicationsequipment where the visual impact of a proposalcan be mitigated to make it acceptable.


14

The public frequently express concern about theuse and development of telecommunications andthe perceived effect on people’s health. Indeed, itwas in response to increasing community concernsaround the safety of mobile phone masts that led tothe Council in February 2004 imposing amoratorium on the erection of new masts orupgrades to existing ones on Council owned landand property. In many of the planning appeals inrecent years in Birmingham against the refusal ofplanning permission for telecommunicationsinfrastructure, the Planning Inspector hasconsidered health based objections from localresidents but in all cases has placed little weight onthose representations in view of government policy.

PPG8 makes it clear that whilst healthconsiderations and public concern can be materialconsiderations in determining applications forplanning permission or for prior approval, theGovernment does not believe that the planningsystem should determine health safeguards. Havingconsidered the recommended precautionaryapproach advocated in the Stewart Report of May2000, the Government considers that if a mobilephone base station meets the InternationalCommission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection(ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure it shouldnot be necessary for the LPA to consider furtherthe health aspects and concerns about them. LPAsshould not implement their own precautionarypolicies, for example, by insisting on minimumdistances between new telecommunicationsdevelopment and existing development.

In view of national policy and subject to thesubmission of written confirmation from theoperator at the time of any application thatemissions from proposed base stations meet theICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, it is unlikelythat the Council will refuse any application on theground of perceived harm to public health,although each application will be continue to beconsidered on its merits.


15

Health considerations and the perception of harm7

Example of antennae disguised as flagpoles

Pre-application

The Council encourages pre-applicationdiscussions and consultations in accordance withthe Code of Practice and the ‘Traffic Light RatingModel’ contained within it. This allows a site to berated by the operator according to its likelysensitivity in terms of environmental planning andcommunity considerations. Depending on the ratinga plan is devised that sets out the level ofconsultation. If issues surrounding a developmentcan be identified early in the process, this providesthe opportunity for them either to be avoided ormitigated. The operator should submit writteninformation covering:

An explanation of the needs in a particular area.

Details of the location and type of apparatusproposed.

Details of any other telecommunications systemson the building or site.

Area of search and details of alternative options,including mast and site sharing or the use ofbuildings or other structures.

Design options for the site.

The proposed ‘traffic light’ rating.

The proposed consultation strategy.

Submission of application

The following information needs to be submittedwith applications to enable a full assessment of theproposal to be made by the Council and to ensurethat sufficient information is available to the publicand other parties interested in particular proposals.

Consultation: PPG8 advises that mobile phoneoperators should, where they propose to installequipment on or near to a school or college,consult with them before proceeding with a

proposal or submitting an application for priorapproval or full planning application. The operatorshould provide evidence to the Council togetherwith any response at the same time as submittingthe application. Although PPG8 does not definewhat is near a school, for the purposes of thisguidance, it should include any proposal within200m of a school boundary and the beam ofmaximum intensity. A school includes day nurseriesand nursery schools. Consultation should also beundertaken in accordance with advice inparagraphs 54-61 of the Code of Best Practice onMobile Phone Network Development.

Plans:A location plan of minimum scale 1:1250.

Full plans and elevations of the equipment andbuilding to a minimum scale of 1:100.

Details on the plans stating the size of theequipment and height above ground level of anymast, antennae other equipment to be attached.

The plans should distinguish between newproposals and existing equipment including thatof other telecommunications operators and otherradio communications equipment.

Photo montage: to assist in understanding thevisual impact of some proposals, especiallyinstallations in sensitive locations and buildings,photo montages of the proposal should beprovided and may be required by the Council.

Technical justification: the technical justificationfor the location including a cell plan showing all thesurrounding sites excluding the one being appliedfor (the doughnut plot). This provides an indicationof the leeway available for the re-siting of themast/base station and the technical constraints.


16

Information required to support an application8

Emission levels: a graph indicating radio frequencyemission levels against distance where the proposalwould be in a residential area or within 200m of aresidential property (all types of residential propertyare included including flats above commercialpremises and tied accommodation such as acaretaker’s residence).

ICNIRP guidelines: written confirmation thatemissions from mobile phone base stations meetthe ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure9. Wherethe base station is or will become a shared site, theICNIRP certificate should indicate cumulative datafrom all mobile phone base stations on the site/apparatus.

Alternatives: where ground based masts areproposed, evidence to demonstrate that applicantshave explored alternatives such as locatingequipment on existing masts or adapting existinginstallations before proposing new sites.

Listed Buildings: if the proposals materially affect alisted building then a separate application for listedbuilding consent will be required.

Consultation with Birmingham InternationalAirport (BIA): mobile phone companies arerequired to consult with BIA where proposals arewithin 3km of the perimeter of Birmingham Airport.

Aerodrome Safeguarding Map: where proposalsfor new telecommunications are proposed on topof existing buildings or structures and an increasein overall height is proposed, the AerodromeSafeguarding Map should be consulted.


17

9 As expressed in the EU Council recommendations of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0Hz to 300GHz). Off J Eur Commun, L199,59 (1999/519/EC)

Publicity

PPG8 encourages local planning authorities toconsider whether statutory consultationarrangements for applications for planningpermission and prior approval will adequatelyprovide for interested parties to be notified of aparticular development. The Council believes thatas some telecommunications proposals can becontroversial, it is important that people likely to beaffected by a proposal have the opportunity tomake their views known. In view of this, wideranging notification of interested parties is made:

All properties within 200m of the application site(including dwellings, industrial, community andcommercial premises).

Heads of schools, educational institutions andgovernors where any part of the schools groundsfall within 200m of a mast or apparatus.

Councillors, MP’s, Residents Associations andNeighbourhood Forums. Where the site is closeto a ward boundary, those in the adjoining wardare also notified.

Any site specific consultations.

Internal consultees within the City Council.

Copies of applications are sent to the appropriateneighbourhood office or library. The application canalso be inspected at the Planning Managementoffices of the Council in Alpha Tower.

Telecommunications register

The Council maintains a TelecommunicationsRegister which lists all planning applications, priornotifications and small installations where thelicensed operator is required to notify the Council.The register is available to view by following thelinks on www.birmingham.gov.uk/telecoms. Thesame site provides links to ward based maps andto existing and proposed telecommunications sites.The register can also be viewed at Alpha Tower.


18

Publicity and information9

Example of a typical telecoms equipment cabin

PPG8 encourages authorities to help applicants toidentify existing and potential sites by makingsuitable local authority owned property available tousers (paragraph 22).

In February 2004, in response to increasingcommunity concerns around the safety of mobilephone masts, the Council imposed a moratorium onthe erection of new masts or upgrades to existingones on Council owned land and property. This ledto a detailed report being prepared by the Council’sCo-ordinating Overview and Scrutiny Committeewhich reviewed the siting of telecommunicationsequipment on Council owned land and premises.The Committee made a series of 19recommendations to the Council in July 2005. Inthe light of this, the Council lifted the moratorium inJanuary 2006 subject to a tighter regulatory regime,which included:

Establishing a member forum to consider theoperators’ annual rollout plans.

All approved telecommunications sites areclassed as ‘targeted sites’ to ensure that theinstallation conforms to what was approved at theplanning stage. All sites are inspected byCompliance Officers in the Council’s PlanningManagement service.

That operators demonstrate that they have fullyconsidered using existing masts, buildings andother structures when submitting planningproposals.

That a comprehensive register of mobile phonemasts and base stations is made publiclyavailable.

That ward members are notified of applicationsfor mobile phone masts.


19

Council owned sites10

Planning ManagementBirmingham City Council,Alpha Tower,Suffolk Street Queensway,Birmingham, B1 1TU.

Tel: (0121) 303 1115

Sustainability Appraisal

A Sustainability Appraisal has been prepared toaccompany this SPD. It can be found on theCouncil’s website at:www.birmingham.gov.uk/mobilenetwork

Most Birmingham City Councilpublications can be made available inalternative formats or languages.

If you have difficulty reading thisdocument please call us on (0121) 3031115 to ask if a full or summary versioncan be made available in large print,another format or another language.

If you have hearing difficulties pleasecall us via Typetalk 18001 0121 3033030 or e-mail us at:[email protected]


20

Contacts for further information11

1. Telecommunications equipment, which is deminimis and does not constitute development.

This can include very small antennae or boxessimilar in size to alarm boxes on the front ofbuildings and less than 50cm in length. Theoperator is required to notify the LPA one monthprior to the installation.

There is no statutory planning requirement forpublic consultation.

2. Telecommunications development which ispermitted development but not of a size ornumber requiring either a full planningapplication or prior approval application to theLPA.

This category is subject to one calendar monthnotification by the operator to inform the LPA ofthe intention to install the equipment as requiredby the Communications Regulations 2003.

Includes smaller equipment such as antennaesystems up to 4m in height on top of buildings,dishes and antennae systems subject tomaximum criteria dependent upon the size orheight of the building or cabins under 2.5cu.m.For a building up to 15m (5 storeys) high, onlytwo separate licensed operators are allowedwithout full planning permission. For higherbuildings, three operators are permitted subjectto maximum height and size criteria.

Development has to be sited to minimise its effecton the external appearance of the building andremoved when no longer required for operationalpurposes.

There is no statutory planning requirement forpublic consultation.

3. Telecommunications development which ispermitted development but subject to priorapproval of the LPA in respect of siting andappearance.

The LPA has 56 days (including statutory publicconsultation) to make a decision otherwise thedevelopment can proceed.

This category includes masts up to 15m high(except those on a building less than 15m inheight within 20m of a highway).

Radio cabins in excess of 2.5cu.m (except thosewhich exceed 30cu.m on buildings or 90cu.m onthe ground or are located in Conservation Areasor SSSI).

Antennae exceeding the height of a building bymore than 4m (subject to height limits referred toin 4 below).

Development ancillary to radio equipmenthousing, eg access roads, fencing and ladders.

Telephone call boxes.

For development near to or on schools andeducational establishments there is a requirementto consult those bodies (as for full applications).

There is a statutory planning requirement forpublic consultation.

4. Telecommunications equipment subject tofull planning permission.

There is a statutory requirement for publicconsultation and PPG8 requires applicants toconsult schools and colleges for developmentlocated close to or on these premises.

Masts over 15m in height and masts (for driverinformation systems) on a building under 15mhigh and within 20m of a highway.


21

Appendix: Categories of telecommunicationsdevelopment and the need for planning permission

A

Radio cabins exceeding 2.5cu.m in aConservation Area or SSSI, exceeding 30cu.m ona building or exceeding 90cu.m on the ground.

Situations where permitted development rightsare exceeded, for example, on top of a buildingwhere an antenna is more than 10m above theroof of a 30m high building, or, where there aremore than three antennae systems or operatorson top of a 30m high building.

Development on listed buildings where theproposal materially affects the appearance orsetting or on scheduled ancient monuments.

Telecommunications antennae (which are smallantennae not exceeding 50cm in length or thoseon a dwelling house) located within aconservation area or an SSSI.

Antennae located on a building less than 15m inheight when located on a wall or roof slopefacing a highway which is within 20m of thebuilding.

Buildings which are not radio cabins but MajorSwitching Stations and are not permitteddevelopment by virtue of Part 8 of the Town andCountry Planning (General PermittedDevelopment) Order 1995.


22

Telecommunication development: mobile phone infrastructure


march2008


Documents

Bham SCI 5/06 · Telecommunications development: mobile phone infrastructure 9 Not all categories of telecommunications equipment require an application for full planning permission,