Agenda item - Interim Response to Petition to Halt the Rollout of 5G

Report of the Director of Public Health (copy attached)

            RESOLVED – That the contents of the report be noted.

43.1    The Board considered a joint report of the Director of Public Health, the Executive Director, Health and Adult Social Care and the Executive Director, Economy Environment and Culture outlining the national guidance relating to the ability to the council to influence roll-out of mobile technology.

43.2    It was noted that at the meeting of Full Council held on 24 October 2019 a petition with 2,240 signatures had been presented requesting that the roll out of 5G technology be halted. A Green Group amendment recommending that the petition was noted and a report on the issue provided for consideration at the next available meeting of the Board was passed.

43.3    Public Health England (PHE) took the lead nationally and provided expert advice on public health matters associated with high frequency EMF and their recently updated guidance could be found in Appendix 1 to the report. The PHE’s advice was based on comprehensive evidence reviews which had been prepared by expert scientists in the UK and around the world including the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Their consensus was that there was no conclusive evidence of adverse health effects related to short term or long-term exposure to high frequency EMF or that EMF below certain safety thresholds was harmful to health.

43.4    The Assistant Director, City Development and Regeneration, Max Woodford, explained that the ability of councils to influence the roll-out of mobile technology was limited by central government regulations on permitted development rights (through the prior approval process) that allowed specified development to go ahead without planning permission. As a consequence planning policy could not be used to halt the roll out of 5G. The planning system did, however, require that any new installations were consistent with the international guidelines adhered to by PHE. Prior approval of the local planning authority was required for masts and certain other types of apparatus falling within permitted development rights, however, considerations were strictly limited to siting and appearance and the only applications refused by the council in respect of such equipment which had been successful at appeal had been on those grounds. Such applications had to be publicised and any representations received taken into account by the local planning authority in determining whether prior approval should be refused and planning permission required.

43.4    Councillor Nield referred to use of the “precautionary principle” referred to in the petitioners’ submission, she understood that the council’s powers under planning legislation were limited but sought clarification regarding any other powers which might be available.

43.5    The Head of Legal Services, Elizabeth Culbert, explained that there was no legal obligation or statutory duty for the local planning authority to apply the “precautionary principle”. The Council as a local planning authority was in a different position to town council’s that had expressed opposition to the roll out of 5G technology. All applications for planning permission needed to be determined on their own merits and the council would be open to allegations of predetermination if it adopted a policy position that the precautionary principle should apply as this would fetter the discretionary power of the local planning authority to grant planning permission. It was highly likely that any such approach would be challenged in the courts.

43.6    Councillor Bagaeen sought clarification in respect of any masts situated on council land/buildings and the powers available to it in such circumstances.

43.7    The Assistant Director, City Development and Regeneration, Max Woodford, explained that although the majority of mast sites in the city would be allowed under permitted development rights, there were currently eight mast sites on council land which were leased to operators who might look to use those sites for 5G technology outside of those rights. Two masts on top of council buildings were used for telecommunications equipment, there were also six council owned sites in more remote locations, used for transmitting and receiving television signals and these due to their locations might be unsuitable for 5G given the short wavelength of the signals. Even if these sites were used they would form a very small part of the equipment that needed to be installed across the city, most of which would be permitted under existing development rights. All other applications would need to considered and determined on their individual merits.

43.8    The Chair, Councillor Moonan, thanked officers for the report which set out clearly the council’s position and detailed its limited ability to influence the roll-out of mobile technology and the reasons that was so.

43.9    RESOLVED – That the contents of the report be noted.