Terms agreed with Orange PCS Ltd. for use of 3-5 Nightingale Lane as a site for non emergency service aerials

Report: 15
Date: 23 October 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) has previously approved the use in principle of the Police Estate for non-emergency service aerials.

Terms have been agreed with Orange PCS Ltd for the use of space at 3-5 Nightingale Lane to locate aerials and generate revenue for the MPA.

This report details the proposed terms and provides a generic risk analysis in relation to the local area. It makes recommendations on this proposal.

A. Recommendation

1. that MPA approval be sought to the terms agreed, subject to contract, with Orange PCS Ltd for the siting of mobile telecoms aerials and associated equipment at 3-5 Nightingale Lane.

B. Supporting information

1. Further to the Finance Committee’s approval of 16 January 2003 for the Director of Property Services to negotiate with interested parties for the use of the MPA estate for non emergency services aerials, terms have been agreed, subject to contract, with Orange PCS Ltd for the use of space at Nightingale Lane.

2. Orange PCS wish to site second generation (2G) and third generation (3G) equipment and aerials on the roof of 3-5 Nightingale Lane to provide coverage to the area, which they are legally obliged to do under the terms of their operating licences.

3. Nightingale Lane is a former Section house that has been converted to offices, and is occupied by a number of OCU’s. It is used primarily as administrative offices for the OCU’s concerned.

4. The agreed Heads of Terms and rent are set out in the Exempt Appendix . These terms have been drafted to ensure that the MPA’s interests are protected as far as possible. The generic issues relating to mobile phone mast sites were discussed in the paper approved by the Finance Committee on 10 July 2003, entitled “Terms agreed with Vodafone for use of Chiswick Police Station as a site for non emergency aerials”.

Protection of operational policing

5. Ongoing liaison is being undertaken with all relevant departments to ensure there are no problems resulting from this installation. This has included the Directorate of Information (DoI) in respect of communications systems and IT, Human Resources (HR) in respect of personnel and health and safety, and the occupying OCU’s in respect of their use of the building. DoI and Property Services must approve all systems before installation can begin.

Health and safety

6. The MPA requires the Director of Property Services to put each case to the Finance Committee for approval with an appropriate risk analysis. The site is on the south side of Clapham Common, and in a northerly direction the predominant land use is open space. In other directions there is a typical mix of uses including residential and commercial.

7. Appendix 1 is a map of the area, showing the building in relation to its surroundings. The blue stars show the approximate position of existing mobile telephone aerials. This information comes from a visual survey and the Radiocommunications Agency website. Schools are shown by the blue shaded boxes, with the health centre and hospital in the yellow shaded boxes. The information on the location of schools is provided by the Department of Education database.

8. Immediately to the west of the building is St Francis Xavier Sixth Form College. Given the proximity of the College to the site Orange PCS Ltd are obliged to undertake consultation with the school prior to planning submissions. This consultation is undertaken as part of Orange PCS’s compliance with the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development. Within the grounds of the school is a Day Nursery.

9. Siting of aerials relative to schools and hospitals is dealt with under the planning system, which the operator, if approved to proceed with this site, will deal with under the Traffic Light model incorporated in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Code of Best Practice mentioned above. The National Radiological Protection Board deals with health and safety issues.

10. As the school building sits slightly lower than the roof of 3-5 Nightingale Lane, it will be underneath the main directional transmissions from the antenna. The height of the proposed installation, its distance from the school, plus the maximum power levels permitted will ensure that exposure levels are extremely low, and well within international guidelines. A short distance to the south are two sets of antennae belonging to 02 and Vodafone, which are only slightly further away from the school than the proposed Orange equipment.

11. At Appendix 2 a copy of updated guidance from the Stewart Report is presented to clarify issues relating to the location of antennas relative to schools. At the Sixth Form College the pupils are of a more mature age and it is highly likely that they will be users of handsets even during the school day. The Day Nursery pupils will be younger and the Stewart Report clarification more significant. Orange are obliged to consult both schools as part of the planning process (see ‘Consultation’ section below). Recent DTI reports have shown that emission levels in schools and hospitals located close to masts are many times, and in some cases millions of times, below international guidelines.

12. The appropriate health and safety equipment will be installed on the roof to protect persons working on the roof, at Orange PCS’ expense.

Commercial issues

13. The terms agreed with Orange PCS Ltd are contained in the Exempt Appendix.

14. The rent for this site is intended to be fixed for all sites of this type - if further approvals are given - across London, and does not vary according to location.

Consultation

15. Direct consultation has been undertaken with the relevant operational departments, the MPA link member and the staff unions and Police Federation. To date no response has been received from the unions or Police Federation. Public Affairs have also been advised and are preparing a Media Statement.

16. Consultations in relation to the schools form part of the Code of Best Practice which the operator is signed up to. These form part of the planning processes for this installation. Orange PCS Ltd undertakes all these consultations as the operator of the equipment.

17. Orange sent consultation letters to the Head Teacher and Governors of St Francis Xavier Sixth form College and the Head Teacher of Nightingale Nursery on 12 June 2003. As at 9 September 2003 no response had been received from either school. These consultations were undertaken at the operators’ risk, the operator being aware that the site was subject to MPA approval. The local Ward Councillor has also been consulted by Orange.

18. Elizabeth Howlett, as MPA link member for Wandsworth Borough has responded:

“Thank you for your letter of the 10 September regarding the siting of a non-emergency Telecom aerial at the above location {3-5 Nightingale Lane]. It was kind of you to solicit my view but I am totally against such aerials being sited close to areas where there are young children. This particular site is next to a school and apparently there is already an aerial installed nearby, according to the briefing attached to your letter. Therefore I do not believe this is an appropriate location.”

C. Equality and diversity implications

There are considered to be no equality and diversity implications arising from the issues in this report.

D. Financial implications

1. The Efficiency and Effectiveness target for 2003/04 of £500,000 per annum anticipates half this sum being generated by aerial sites. It was suggested in the Report to the Finance Committee of the 16 January 2003 that this be reduced to £100,000.

2. In order to meet either target the MPA needs to develop the aerial network on its estate, and this agreement forms part of this process.

Legal implications

1. Apart from the contract with Orange there are not considered to be any other legal implications upon the MPA.

E. Background papers

• Finance Committee –16 January 2003
• Finance Committee – 10 July 2003
• Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2002
• Department of Trade & Industry Mobile Phone Base Station Audit – School Results 2002: DTI Press Release 18th February 2003 (P/2003/100)

F. Contact details

Report author: Alan Croney, Director of Property Services, MPS.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 2

Clarification of Issues Discussed in the Stewart Report

Clarification requested by Professor Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer, on issues discussed in the Expert Group report on Mobile Phones and Health (“The Stewart Report”).

Mobile phones

Would the Expert Group give specific advice or guidance for the adult regular mobile phone user?

The Expert Group believes that, on the basis of the evidence currently available, there is no need for the general population to be worried about the use of mobile phones.

In line with the precautionary approach highlighted in the report, the Expert Group notes that individuals may choose to:

• use phones for as short a time as possible.
• use phones with low specific energy absorption rate (SAR) values.
• use hands-free kits and other devices provided they have been proved to reduce SAR.

The Expert Group discourages the use of mobile phones whilst driving.

Would the Expert Group be clearer about to what age should children be discouraged from using mobiles for anything other than essential calls?

As a general rule the Expert Group considers that children less than 16 years of age should be discouraged from using mobile phones.

Children are likely to be more vulnerable to any unrecognised health risks from mobile phone use than are adults. The rationale is as follows:

• the developing nervous system is likely to be more vulnerable than the mature nervous system to potentially hazardous agents.
• because of their smaller heads, thinner skulls and higher tissue conductivity, children may absorb more energy from a given phone than do adults.
• if there are detrimental health effects caused by mobile phone signals, those using phones for a longer period of their lives will tend to accumulate a greater risk.

The justification for suggesting persons aged less than 16 years is as follows:

• development of the head and nervous system is generally complete by age 16 years. For example, the density of synapses reaches adult level around puberty and skull thickness and brain size reach adult levels around ages 14 to 15.
• 16 is usually recognised as the age at which individuals are sufficiently mature to make informed choices about other 'adult' activities.

Base stations

Why did the Expert Group pay particular attention to schools in their recommendations on planning and auditing and not consider other areas which children occupy (and where the beam may fall)?

The Expert Group was specifically asked by government to address the issue of siting of base stations on or near schools. It is known that children are in school for a large proportion of the day, whereas their whereabouts outside school are much less clearly defined.

Why was the Expert Group only concerned with 'beams of greatest intensity' falling on any part of school grounds rather than other areas which children occupy? Furthermore, could the Expert Group clarify what they define as a 'beam of greatest intensity' and how in practical terms it might be measured in every affected locality?

Exposure to members of the public from macrocell base stations is very much less than current guidelines. In giving special attention to schools, the Expert Group was responding very largely to public concern rather than any proven health hazard.

In defining the 'beam of greatest intensity', the aim of the recommendation by the Expert Group was to ensure that the accessible location where the greatest exposure to the radiofrequency radiation signal occurs is not within school grounds. It would be up to the operator to demonstrate this by measurement or other means.

Since there are no scientific grounds for setting guidelines below the levels set by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for the public, the Expert Group avoided setting exposure limits for school buildings and grounds below these limits.

For the same reason it did not wish to recommend that there should be a particular minimum distance between the base station and the school.

First issued 16 June 2000

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback