аЯрЁБс>ўџ 79ўџџџ6џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС7 №П'bjbjUU 47|7|Ъ"Mџџџџџџlііііііі 8: F )Жnn(––––––ЈЊЊЊЊЊЊ$п џцЮі–––––ЮVіі––уVVV–Rі–і–ЈV–ЈV‚Vи Њь|ііŒ–b  гХОФ јшLhŒљ0)zх4"хŒV  іііійCCUK APPENDIX 5 SUGGESTED CHANGES TO PART 24 OF SCHEDULE 2 OF THE GPDO Amendments to the Prior Approval Procedures The Prior Approval procedure set out at Condition A.3 remains unnecessarily complex and is still not properly understood by many local planning authorities and the public at large. The principal complication is the two-stage aspect of the procedures, i.e. the application for a determination on whether prior approval on detailed siting and appearance is required, and if so, a second determination as to whether the submitted details are approved or refused. As it is now a policy requirement to always submit details with an application for a determination on prior approval (that goes well beyond the statutory requirement), the two-stage aspect of the procedure is not only confusing but also otiose. In the light of this requirement that shall be echoed in the Code of Best Practice, there is simply no need for a local planning authority to make a determination that it does want to approve details on siting and appearance. The procedure should therefore be simplified along the lines of what is now essentially current practice, i.e. a single stage procedure. With such an amendment the procedure would operate along similar lines to an application for the approval of details, following the grant of outline planning permission. Most local authority members understand this and importantly appreciate their determination of such an application cannot look at the principle of the development proposed. This important factor is often not understood by Members and some officers in dealing with applications under the current prior approval procedure. In addition, the procedures need to be clarified to enable the approval of amended details following the submission of an application. As the condition is currently expressed, some local planning authorities seek new applications to approve amendments to an original application. This is because the wording can be interpreted as tying any approval to only the details submitted with the application. This is unhelpful and a waste of scarce public and private sector resources. A further change suggested is the need to allow for the imposition of conditions. To achieve all of these suggestions, Condition A.3 (4) should be revised to require the submission of a blue and red line application plan, as required for a normal planning application, and the submission of detailed drawings showing the siting and appearance of the works proposed. In addition, Condition A.3 (7) should indicate that development should not be begun before the occurrence of one of the following: the receipt by the applicant from the local planning authority of a written notice approving the details submitted or as amended following submission, subject to any condition requiring the carrying out of works on any land under the control of the applicant, so far as appears to be expedient to the local planning authority for the purposes or in connection with the development authorised by the approval ; or the expiry of a period of 56 days beginning with the date on which the local planning authority received the application without notifying the applicant, in writing, of their refusal of the details submitted or as amended following submission. The Removal of unnecessary and/or anachronistic Controls Amendment to Class A.1 (a) and (b) Under Class A.1 (a) and (b) antennas attached to a ground based mast are permitted to exceed 15 metres above existing ground level. This provision, however, excludes supporting elements. As these can be discreet, there is not always any obvious planning purpose behind this restriction. Moreover, this restriction has the effect of limiting in some cases the mast sharing potential of existing and proposed structures. It would be desirable therefore to amend Class A.1 (a) and (b) to allow antenna supports to also exceed 15 metres. As any development promoted under these provisions is subject to prior approval, a local planning authority would retain control on detailed appearance. It would therefore be possible to refuse any configuration that was likely to cause serious risk to visual amenity. Amendments to Class A.1 (f), (g) (i), (ii) and (iii), (h) (i) and (ii), and (k) All the limitations set out in these parts of Class A.1 were introduced before the prior consultation procedures were introduced and are now anachronistic and in some cases counter productive to their planning objectives. In addition, they seem wholly confusing and irrational to the average member of the public, which brings the planning system into disrepute. To illustrate this, under Class A.1 (g) (ii), a single dish antenna proposed on a building of say 8 metres high might require full planning permission and such permission can be refused as a matter of principle as well as detail. By contrast, a 15 metre high mast with antennas projecting above can be proposed in the grounds of that same building as permitted development, subject to only to the prior approval procedures. If operated properly the proposed mast cannot be refused as a matter of principle. This is absurd. As a further illustration to demonstrate how the limitations can be counter-productive, one only need look, for example, at Class A.1(g) (i). Under this provision a face mounted antenna on a building, that could be an ideal planning solution, requires full planning permission if the wall faces a highway. As a consequence, antennas are sometimes pole-mounted on the roof of buildings as they can be installed without even requiring prior approval. As the latter configuration is also often more practicable from an operational point of view, this cannot always be controlled by the local planning authority. In view of these clear inconsistencies, these limitations need to be amended so that if they are breached, the requirement for prior approval should apply and not the requirement for full planning permission. The Need to Extend the Permitted Development Rights Under Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO to Licensed Broadcasters Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO only relates to telecommunications code systems operators i.e. those operators who benefit from a licence issued under Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. By contrast, PPG8 applies to all forms of telecommunications development. Thus, whilst there is consistency in the policy approach to these different forms of telecommunications, a significant anomaly exists in their treatment under legislation resulting from the fact that most television and radio broadcasting activities are licensed under the Broadcasting Act 1981. They do not therefore benefit from telecommunications code powers and permitted development rights. Cable television is licensed under the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is therefore an exception. This situation results in significant inconsistency in law between different forms of modern communications. In Crown Castle’s view such inconsistency is unnecessary and undesirable. As an illustration: a telecommunications code systems operator can install antennae on an existing mast without the need for any approval from the local planning authority. The mast might originally have been installed by the BBC and now be owned by Crown Castle. The BBC, however, would require full planning permission if it wished to install a single small dish on the mast with a material impact on its external appearance. In Crown Castle’s view there is no land use planning justification for the requirement of the BBC antenna described above to be subject to full planning procedures and nor are there reasons of overriding social or economic importance to justify such a distinction between different types of operators. A further associated concern is that public broadcasters require full planning permission to alter or replace existing apparatus whereas telecommunications code system operators can do so as permitted development subject to the relevant procedures. Alteration or replacement of telecommunications masts is often required to enable sharing of masts initially installed for public broadcasting. The requirement for planning permission frustrates and delays improvements that would otherwise facilitate greater mast sharing. This lack of permitted development rights is therefore counterproductive to the objective that seeks to encourage further mast sharing as a means of avoiding the unnecessary proliferation of radio masts. Thus, Crown Castle proposes a fundamental amendment to Part 24 to enable all operators with licences for public broadcasting to benefit from permitted development rights. This would be more equitable, achieve consistency across different forms of telecommunications in both legislation and policy and facilitate the achievement of important objectives. CROWN CASTLE UK LTD MARCH 2002 Crown Castle UK Ltd PAGE 3 PAGE 1 All Party Parliamentary Group HIvw^њћ№)LjkюяnoПgнЋ&Щ&Ъ&о&п&р&ц&ч&ш&щ&ъ&ь&э&ѓ&є&ѕ&і&ї&''§§ћћ§ћћћ§§§ї№э№х№э№э№х№эї0JmHnHu0J j0JU6CJ65'HIJvwCЄ m П л ^ћя№)LkњјјііјіщщщщщщщщммваТЕ $ & FdhЄ№a$ $„аdhЄ№^„аa$ $dhЄ№a$ $ & FdhЄ№a$ $ & FdhЄ№a$$a$Ъ&'§§kяoП*5–ghня•B!p"H%Љ&Њ&Ћ&П&Ъ&о&п&ђђфђђђђккееееееггШШУС$a$ „d№Є^„ & F $dhЄ№a$ $„аdhЄ№^„аa$ $ & FdhЄ№a$п&ъ&ы&ь&ї&''''ієђіэђђт „d№Є^„$a$„ќџ„&`#$Аа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %А i4@ёџ4 NormalCJ_HmH sH tH 0@0 Heading 1$@&5@@@ Heading 2$$dhЄ№@&a$5<A@ђџЁ< Default Paragraph Font, @ђ, Footer  ЦрР!&)@Ђ& Page Number\S@\ Body Text Indent 3$„рdhЄ№^„рa$ mH sH u,@", Header  Ц9r #4џџџџHIJvwCЄmПл ^ ћ я № ) L kяoП*5–ghня•BpH!Љ"Њ"Ћ"П"Ъ"о"ь"ї"###€€€€€€˜€˜€€€˜€J˜ €J˜ €J˜ €J˜ €J˜ €J˜ €J˜ €J˜ €J˜ €J˜ €J˜€J€J˜€№ ˜ €№ ˜ €№ ˜ €№ ˜€№ ˜ €№ ˜ €№ ˜ €№ ˜ €№ ˜€№ ˜€№ ˜ €№ ˜ €№ ˜ €№ ˜ €№ ˜ €№ ˜ €№ ˜€п ˜€п ˜€п ˜0€€š@0€€š@€€š@0€€˜@€€˜@€€ "LLLO'kп&''")+O!џ•€!џ•€Щ"Ъ"н"п"щ"ь"і"ї"###^ a ћ ў ЗЛнЩ"Ъ"ь"і"#333Щ"Ъ"ь"і"#џџElizabeth Jayne Price2C:\windows\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Document1.asdElizabeth Jayne Price8C:\My Documents\Saleem Business\CCI\DTLR\GPDOChanges.doc CrownCastle7D:\ShamasS\My Documents\Green Paper Eng\GPDOChanges.doc CrownCastle^C:\WINNT\Profiles\shamass\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of GPDOChanges.asd CrownCastle^C:\WINNT\Profiles\shamass\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of GPDOChanges.asdCrown Castle UK Ltd;D:\ShamasS\My Documents\All Party Group\CCUK APPENDIX 5.docElizabeth Jayne PriceGC:\My Documents\Saleem Business\CCI\All Party Group\CCUK APPENDIX 5.docElizabeth Jayne PriceGC:\My Documents\Saleem Business\CCI\All Party Group\CCUK APPENDIX 5.docC1лкикOџ xр tъdўџџџџџџџџџа!qQрц4IџWr!] И„ЧџМRmetџœгtтjЬЯџ „а„0§Ца^„а`„0§56o(.џ „а„0§Ца^„а`„0§56o(5.„ „˜ўЦ ^„ `„˜ў.„p„LџЦp^„p`„Lџ.„@ „˜ўЦ@ ^„@ `„˜ў.„„˜ўЦ^„`„˜ў.„р„LџЦр^„р`„Lџ.„А„˜ўЦА^„А`„˜ў.„€„˜ўЦ€^„€`„˜ў.„P„LџЦP^„P`„Lџ. „а„0§Ца^„а`„0§56o(.„а„0§Ца^„а`„0§5689TXo(3.„а„Ц8^„а`„56.„а„0§Ца^„а`„0§56.œгtМRmeC1лWr!]а!qQ xр џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџЪ"##џ@€ќaо#`@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial"1ˆ№аhм„Ім„Іэ„ІЏ=!№ЅРДД€0d9#Љ"2ƒ№пџџ6SUGGESTED CHANGES TO PART 24 OF SCHEDULE 2 OF THE GPDOElizabeth Jayne PriceCrown Castle UK Ltdўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0Д˜иф  <H d p | ˆ”œЄЌф7SUGGESTED CHANGES TO PART 24 OF SCHEDULE 2 OF THE GPDOcUGGElizabeth Jayne PriceARlizNormaltCrown Castle UK Ltd2owMicrosoft Word 9.0@@^ђ‹ŸФ@X ГОФ@X ГОФЏўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ08 hp”œЄЌ ДМФЬ д фDell Computer Corporation =9#  7SUGGESTED CHANGES TO PART 24 OF SCHEDULE 2 OF THE GPDO Title ўџџџ !"#$%ўџџџ'()*+,-ўџџџ/012345ўџџџ§џџџ8ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFpƒъХОФ:€1TableџџџџџџџџџџџџхWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ4SummaryInformation(џџџџ&DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ.CompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџpƒъХОФpƒъХОФџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq