Mobile Phone Masts

What are mobile phone masts?

Mobile telephony uses a radio wave network. Mobile phones are small radio transmitters and receivers, typically with a range of a few miles. To send or receive calls, a handset must be within range of a transmitter mast. When a call is made within range of a mast, the mast relays the call to a switching centre, either by underground cable or by microwave, which routes it to the correct destination. If the destination is a mobile phone, it too must be in range of a mast.

To provide seamless coverage across an area, mobile phone network operators must erect enough masts to be in range of most mobile phones most of the time. Each mast can only handle a fixed number of calls, and so multiple masts will need to be clustered in built-up areas. The need for large numbers of low-powered masts also stems from the need for neighbouring masts to transmit at different frequencies from one another, to avoid 'jamming'.

Concerns about mobile phone masts relate both to their environmental impact and any possible health impact of the radiofrequency (RF) emissions from the masts.

Background

The development of mobile phone technology is still relatively recent, and consequently, so are its associated planning and health concerns.

A mobile phone mast counts as a 'development' for planning purposes, and is therefore subject to planning permission. However, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 introduced a substantial exception to this rule, granting a general planning permission for masts of less than 15 metres in height erected by a network operator licensed by the Department of Trade and Industry.

From 1999, under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) Order 1999, operators seeking to exercise this power were required to apply to the local planning authority for a decision on whether the siting and appearance of the development requires the authority's prior approval. Within 42 days, during which time a public notice must be displayed at the site, local authorities can reject a proposal if it will have a serious impact on amenity, and operators can appeal against this decision to the Secretary of State.

Public concern about the health impact of mobile phones and masts led to the appointment of an expert committee, chaired by Sir William Stewart, in 2000. The Stewart Report found no evidence for handsets or masts having negative health effects, but made a number of recommendations: the report suggested that the impact of masts near houses, schools and other buildings could have a negative environmental and psychological effect on people, and recommended that all masts, regardless of height, should be subject to full planning permission.

In June 2000, the Government responded by advising local authorities to prevent the 'beam of greatest intensity' from a base station's antenna from falling on school premises, but insisted that the report had not called for the removal of masts from schools.

Following further consultations, in March 2001 the Government issued revised planning guidelines, 'Planning Policy Guidance 8: Telecommunications', which reinforced public consultation arrangements for small masts, increased the prior approval period to 56 days, and insisted that school governors must be consulted on any proposals for masts on or near schools or colleges. The new PPG came into force in August 2001.

A Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development was introduced in 2002 and a review into the operation and effectiveness of the Code was published in March 2006 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This report concluded that the Code had "significantly improved" the process of planning for mobile network development and that where operators and their agents complied with the Code, it was considered to be working well. But the review also recommended that the Code be revised to reflect the on-going evolution of network coverage requirements and that the identification of an independent adjudication body be considered to deal with complaints from any party.

Controversies

There remains concern among the public that radiofrequency emissions from mobile phone masts have a negative impact on human health, despite the Stewart Report finding no evidence to support this. Stewart insisted that emissions from most masts were well below existing guidelines, but suggested that the fears about the health impact of masts may themselves be producing negative health effects.

The ambiguity of the Stewart Report did little to assuage public fears. Although unable to find evidence of health damage, the report warned that there was evidence to suggest that radiofrequency emissions from handsets have "subtle effects" on the brain, and called for children's access to phones to be restricted. Overall, Stewart recommended a precautionary approach to the technology.

However, prior evidence did exist about the health effects caused by base stations (the microwave transmitter dishes seen on many masts). Exposure to the immediate vicinity of base stations is understood to potentially cause foetal abnormalities through heating, but the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology concluded in 1998 that their position atop masts minimises any risk.

A study carried out by researchers at the University of Essex and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives in 2007 concluded that short-term exposure to a typical GSM base station-like signal did not affect well-being or physiological functions. The three year study of 44 electro-sensitive volunteers and 114 control volunteers found that the sensitive individuals experienced symptoms when they thought the signal was switched on, when in fact it was off, suggesting a psychological basis for the symptoms.

But the group Mast Sanity, which campaigns for the safe siting of mobile phone masts, remained unconvinced, claiming that "cancer clusters, clusters of ill-health, depression and even suicide" had been found in proximity to the masts and other wireless sources of microwave radiation. In June 2008 the group wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to "instruct the Chief Medical Officer and the Health Protection Agency to issue warnings to the British public and ensure that public exposure limits are reduced immediately".

There is also public opposition to the siting of mobile phone masts on environmental grounds, and some people say that masts are an "eyesore".

Public hostility to mobile phone masts was considerably exacerbated by the use of the general planning permission under the 1995 Order with little or no consultation. Some communities found that masts had been erected almost overnight without their having any say in the matter.

The Government's reforms of 1999 and 2001 tried to defuse the issue, urging network operators to share masts, remove unnecessary infrastructure and consult more thoroughly. Improving technology has also made it possible for the industry to use more and more sub-15 metre masts.

In September 2007 Ofcom announced proposals for consultation to open up the radio spectrum bands used by mobile phone operators Vodafone, O2, T-Mobile and Orange for their 2G networks. Ofcom proposed to remove the restriction to 2G, freeing up the spectrum to a much wider range of uses including high-speed mobile broadband services using 3G and noted that in particular, "future 3G services rolled out using 900MHz would require far fewer mobile phone masts than if higher frequencies were used".

The lack of mobile phone coverage in rural areas has been criticised by rural businesses and communities. According to a report from the Commission for Rural Communities published in November 2010, some rural areas in the UK still do not have basic 2G (second-generation) coverage. In these so-called 'not-spots' it is impossible to make or maintain a mobile phone call, or send or receive texts. The report points out that a mobile phone "is now considered a necessity, as opposed to a lifestyle choice", with more emergency calls made on mobiles than landlines and that these 'not-spots' therefore "significantly impact those they affect beyond simple inconvenience."

Ofcom has acknowledged the problem, identifying 'not-spots' as an area for further work in its 2009 statement on mobile sector assessment and more recently citing the issue as a "priority area" in the 2010/11 Annual Plan.

Statistics

Approximately 97% of the UK population and 91% of the UK land mass has 2G (voice and text) coverage. These represent areas where at least one mobile operator provides a service.
3G coverage is less extensive in the UK covering around 87% of the population and 76% of the land mass.
Partial not-spots, where some operators do not provide a service, exist within these areas. For example, 5% of the population can access only one operator network in their area.
2G and 3G coverage levels are lower in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland compared to English regions.
For example, Scotland has the lowest levels of 2G coverage at 87% population coverage. Northern Ireland has the lowest 3G population coverage at just 40%.

Source: Ofcom - November 2010

Quotes

"Regarding the siting of telephone masts, this is a planning matter and therefore Government decides the law and any permitted development rights. However the Health Protection Agency notes that measurements in the UK and elsewhere, show that exposure levels to the signals from phone masts are much less than those from using mobile phone handsets, typically by factors of 100, 1000 and even 10,000, including when people are quite close to a mast."

Health Protection Agency - 2010

"Small businesses are the backbone of the rural economy but they need decent connectivity in order to be accessible to customers and to keep in touch with their offices. Employers are cutting costs and increasingly want their employees to work flexibly including from home, but this can be difficult for people with poor mobile reception."

Graham Russell, executive director, Commission for Rural Communities - November 2010