Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 11 May 2000

11 May 2000 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Telecommunications

Jackson, Dr Sylvia Lab Stirling Watch on SPTV

I welcome constituents who have travelled to the Parliament from Strathblane and who have been going through an ordeal with a mast in their area. I thank the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Stewart committee for their reports, which complement each other.

The last time that this matter was discussed in the chamber, many of us expressed great concern about the behaviour of the telecommunication companies. Since then, the situation has worsened. In my constituency, proposals to erect masts near houses and children's play areas, by the side of roads and in built-up areas have caused great anger, which has led to public demonstrations in Strathblane and Bannockburn.

In the case of Strathblane, Stirling Council was able to order the mast to be moved as it hampered drivers' vision. The bad news is that, under present planning regulations, Orange could move the mast a couple of yards further up the grass verge and there would be nothing that the council or the community could do about it—not legally, anyway. The situation in Bannockburn resulted in what a local paper referred to as the second battle of Bannockburn. The area faces the prospect of five masts being situated in the area by three companies. So much for the press releases that state that the companies are trying to work together.

As a growing number of constituents have become concerned about the siting of the masts near their homes, Stirling Council agreed to have a moratorium and not allow any masts to be erected on council land. However, that cannot be fully enforced as areas such as grass verges, which are available to the utilities, must also be available to telecommunication companies. That came as a shock to us when we heard about it last week. Stirling Council also agreed that any proposals received after the February moratorium date would be communicated to community councils. However, news of many of the masts that communities are fighting was communicated to the council in 1999. As a consequence, no prior warning has been given to the communities. No wonder that communities feel powerless, as Elaine Smith said earlier.

With masts of less than 15 m, councils can intervene only in areas of conservation or when masts placed on grass verges block drivers' vision. What can we MSPs do? What can we recommend that the Scottish Executive does? We should ask for full planning powers to be implemented with regard to all telecommunication masts. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities believes that prior approval procedures are an unsatisfactory halfway house. We need to prepare national planning guidance that will set a framework within which local councils can work with telecommunication companies. The guidelines should be based on the precautionary principle that masts should be sited away from residential areas. As the report says, the guidance should include local flexibility to prevent masts from being placed in environmentally sensitive areas such as Bannockburn. Also, there must be more mast sharing.

If all the proposals that I have mentioned are adopted, what happens in the intervening period? Can we have a moratorium on the erection of masts? I have spoken to Sarah Boyack about that and have lodged a written question on the subject. I hope that she will say something about it in her winding-up speech.

What happens to the telecommunications masts that are already in place? The Scottish Executive could urge all the companies to reconsider the placing of masts and to think about repositioning them. We really must move on this issue, as people are sitting there with these masts, as Nick Johnston said, next to their kitchen windows. We must address that immediately.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 11 May 2000

In the same item of business