PE811 is from Mark Mulholland on behalf of Parents and Residents Against Masts, or PRAM. The petition calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the permitted development rights enjoyed by Network Rail in respect of the erection of 96ft global system for mobile communications railway—GSM-R—communication masts in residential areas.At its meeting on 2 February 2005, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Minister for Communities, Network Rail, the Office of Rail Regulation, the Office of Communications, the National Radiological Protection Board, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications. With the exception of the response of the advisory committee, which no longer exists, responses have been received and circulated to members.
Official Report · Committee
Current Petitions
GSM-R Communication Masts (Planning Permission) (PE811)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Michael McMahon Lab 3
- Sandra White SNP 1
- John Scott Con 1
- Campbell Martin Ind 1
The record
6 contributionsI know that you had quite a lot to say when the petition first came to the committee, convener. I will throw in my tuppenceworth and perhaps you could sum it up.I have always had concerns—as has everyone—about masts being put up just anywhere. We could change things only under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, but nothing seems to be happening. The minister has made one good move, in that he is encouraging Network Rail to talk to communities. I would like an update to see how far that has gone and what Network Rail is doing at the moment. That was all that I wanted to say; we should write to the Minister for Communities.
That would be useful. We could also ask how the minister thinks that this issue will fit in with the proposed new planning legislation.
The recommendation from COSLA is very sensible.
I have an example where Network Rail wrote to the local authority—North Ayrshire Council in this case—to advise where it wanted to put masts but the council made no representations. When I queried why it had not done so, it said that it was under the impression that it was just being notified for information and had not responded to any notices. However, other councils have responded to such notification and Network Rail has accommodated their concerns, moving masts in some cases. Therefore, there might be a problem with some councils and their understanding of Network Rail's permissions.
I hope that the proposed new planning legislation will give some clarity, especially in relation to the involvement of communities when such things are going to have an impact on them. If we ask the minister for his views on the proposed planning legislation and how it might be affected by such issues, that would be useful for clarification and we could then get back to the petitioners to see whether they think that that will be effective.
In this meeting
Everything on 8 Sep 2005 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Thursday 8 September 2005 Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 77
- New Petitions Petitions · 33
- New Petitions Petitions · 41
- New Petitions Petitions · 6
- New Petitions Petitions · 12
- New Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 15
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 12
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
- Current Petitions Petitions · 26
- Public Petitions Committee Event Petitions · 9
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.