SPD Consultation Statement - Oxford City Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Paragraph 69 Paragraph 69 Paragraph 71 Mobile Operators’ Association TSPD4/13 Mobile Operators’ Association TSPD4/14 Mobile Operators’ Association It is not the place of operators to collate and summarise current scientific research on the effect of RF exposure. It is certainly not the place of local authorities to assess such information and set their own exposure limits. The requirement for an RF contour plot on an OS base map would be extremely difficult for the operators to comply with and should be removed. This may serve to increase, rather than address, community concerns. Reference in SPD to optimum beam pattern for addressing health concerns is likewise inappropriate and should be removed. Strongly object to paragraph 71 in the SPD, this paragraph should be removed. As this requirement 20 development plan. The SPD as drafted states that HRIA should include reference to appropriate up-to-date scientific research on RF exposure and health. This is important to ensure applicants provide a balanced context to site specific information on RF emissions, and constitutes knowledge with which operators should be entirely familiar. The City Council understands that the RF contour plot is a readily available and commonly used software tool, and considers this appropriate for providing information on RF emission in a transparent and easily understandable way. However wording of SPD amended to recognise that a text-and-table RF Profile may be acceptable in some cases. References to optimum beam pattern also amended for clarity. The City Council considered this request at its Council Meeting on 3 rd September 2007 and decided No change. Paragraph 69 has been amended by new paragraphs 71-74, to refer to RF Profile as possible alternative to RF Map Plot, only if agreed with the Planning department. New paragraph 73 clarifies that the City Council will expect submission of an RF Map Plot alongside applications on or near a school and its grounds. Retain paragraph 71 (renumbered 75) amended to read:
TSPD4/15 duplicates the effects of other controls, and is not consistent with national planning policies, it contradicts Circular 11/1995: Use of Conditions. It would also impose an unnecessary financial burden on the operator. 21 to keep this paragraph in the SPD, amended to remove reference to regular monitoring in recognition that regular monitoring may be onerous. APPENDIX 2: SITING AND DESIGN: RELEVANT OXFORD LOCAL PLAN (OLP) POLICIES Appendix 2 Natural England TSPD5/1 Support references to Oxford’s watercourses, trees and hedgerows, biodiversity value, SACs, SSSIs, SLINCs, LNRs and wildlife corridors in considering siting and design. However it is recommended that reference is also made to OLP Policy NE.21 – Species Protection. Agree that reference to this additional OLP policy would be beneficial. APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC LIGHT MODEL FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION Appendix 3 Natural England TSPD5/2 Natural England would be concerned about any proposals for ground-based towers close to or within statutorily designated nature conservation sites (SSSI/SAC) which could have an adverse impact. Would wish to be consulted at an early stage for such proposals. Information in Appendix 3 reiterates national advice the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development (Annex D), and should not therefore be altered. However suggest additional sentence at end of paragraph 34 to clarify role of other bodies in preapplication discussions. “Conditions may, in certain cases, be imposed on a planning permission for telecommunications development to require regularadditional monitoring of electromagnetic frequency emissions.” Add to table column 2 row 2 “Species Protection (NE.21)”. Add sentence after end of 2 nd sentence in paragraph 34 (renumbered 35): “Developers should also consult statutory and other expert bodies at the pre-application stage as appropriate.”
Page 1 and 2: Telecommunications Supplementary Pl
Page 3 and 4: Government as ICNIRP. Thus HRIA sho
Page 5 and 6: List of Initial External Consultees
Page 7 and 8: English Churches Housing Group Fair
Page 9 and 10: Comments made at Area Committee 9 A
Page 11 and 12: households’ referred to in paragr
Page 13 and 14: Whole doc. English Heritage TSPD7/1
Page 15 and 16: Paragraph 37 Paragraph 39 Mobile Op
Page 17 and 18: Paragraph 58 Paragraph 60 Paragraph
Page 19: Paragraphs 67-71 Paragraph 68 Prarg
Page 23: TSPD5/6 survey and evaluation of ea

SPD Consultation Statement - Oxford City Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?