Agnes
|
# Posted: 31 May 2006 05:07
Reply
Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPG 8) para 29 confirms “health can be a material planning consideration”.
This was confirmed by Yvette Cooper MP, the Deputy Planning Minister, in the in the House of Commons on 16 March 2005 (Hansard, column 245). In response to a question put by Dr Vince Cable (Lib Dem) on the need to allow discretion over mast sitings. She acknowledged, “Health can be a material consideration in planning cases”. That is why George Baird, from the Planning Inspectorate, rejected a mobile phone mast appeal by Orange (in Manchester) in February. He said health risks was one of the main reasons for his objection.
And of course PPG8 is not set in stone. It is merely "guidance" so therefore when they ignore the above and say they are bound by PPG8 para 30, this is simply not true. But of course all the planners are concerned about is the cost of an appeal. I argue that the appeal cost would be £20,000. 20p on the council tax. The cost to the NHS treating patients living near any mast could run into millions etc.
|
