Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 11 May 2000

11 May 2000 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Telecommunications

Crawford, Bruce SNP Mid Scotland and Fife Watch on SPTV

I would like to begin by congratulating the Transport and the Environment Committee on its work and on its report. I think that Andy Kerr did a good job of putting the case on the committee's behalf.

I will tell the chamber a sorry tale about what can happen as a result of what is permitted under the current guidelines, particularly with regard to replacement masts, and about why I believe that the procedure of prior notification will not suffice and why I believe in the committee's recommendation that full planning permission should be the starting point.

In the spring of 1998, a neighbour to a new mast development contacted me to alert me to the erection of a monster mast in an area of outstanding conservation in Kinross town, 25 m from Nick Johnston's window. Directly across the street is the local high school, attended by 800 pupils. The new mast is to replace one of a slim pole variety, erected many years previously. The original 27 m mast had been granted planning permission in 1986 for use by the police. The new mast, erected by Orange with the police's consent, despite being of the same height, is a large lattice-type structure, a bit like a poor man's Blackpool tower. The mast is a carbuncle on the Kinross street scene, and has caused much angst, anger and concern.

But enough of that. The real issue is that, according to Perth and Kinross Council, the mast did not require planning permission, and could be erected under existing permitted development rights, despite being in an outstanding area of conservation. According to the council's legal department, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 says:

"that development is permitted when it consists of the installation, alteration or replacement of any telecommunications apparatus".

There are always, as may be obvious, lots of caveats to that, but it seemed that, in this case, the development was indeed permitted. In short, the mast which previously existed required planning permission, whereas its replacement was erected under permitted development legislation.

Some people might suggest that the matter could have been sorted out if a procedure of prior approval or notification existed. Not so. Under regulation 67(5) of the 1992 order, it is made quite clear that the erection of a mast in a conservation area is permitted, subject to the condition that the operator shall give prior notice in writing to a planning authority not less than eight weeks before development has begun. That eight weeks of notification was observed, and Orange proceeded to erect the mast.

What is at issue is that, although the planning officers knew what was happening, the local community was entirely unaware of Orange's proposals. Even the local elected members were not alerted beforehand. All that would not have happened had full planning permission been required. The whole point of the planning procedure is to ensure that there is a process of checks and balances between what the planning officers think and what the elected council members think, with planning officers working to policy guidelines and elected members representing the legitimate concerns of their community.

That procedure best guarantees that an issue of substantial concern to a community is properly discussed in an open and transparent manner. It is a shame that those rules did not exist previously as a lot of damage has been done in this country and I do not know how we will redress it and how we will regain a proper perspective. Perhaps the minister will talk about that later. There can be no replacement for enabling communities to participate in the decision-making process with their elected representatives. Folks, this is democracy. I suggest that we lay democracy aside at our peril.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 11 May 2000

In the same item of business