Terms agreed with O2 for use of Barnet Police Station as a site for non emergency service aerials

Report: 14
Date: 20 November 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

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

2. Terms have been agreed with 02 for the use of space at Barnet Police Station to locate aerials and generate revenue for the MPA.

3. 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 members approve the terms agreed, subject to contract, with O2 for the siting of mobile telecoms aerials and associated equipment at Barnet Police Station.

B. Supporting information

1. Further to the MPA Finance Committee’s approval for the Director of Property Services (16 January 2003) 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 O2 for the use of space at Barnet Police Station.

2. O2 wish to site 2G and 3G equipment and aerials on the roof of Barnet Police Station to provide coverage to the area, which they are legally obliged to do under the terms of their operating licences.

3. Barnet Police Station is occupied and used by Barnet BOCU.

4. The agreed Heads of Terms and rent are set out in the Exempt Appendix. These terms are almost identical to those for the 02 site at Finchley Police Station, previously approved by the Finance Committee on 23 October 2003.

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 in respect of their use of the building. DoI and Property Services must approve all systems before installation can begin.

6. Barnet Police Station already has an Airwave antenna on the building, installed and operated by an associated company of O2. It is imperative that the proposed antenna does not interfere with the Airwave equipment, and O2 Airwave will be involved in ensuring there are no problems.

Health and safety

7. The MPA requires the Director of Property Services to put each case to the Finance Committee for approval with an appropriate risk analysis. The police station is located on the south eastern side of a comparatively steep hill, upon which High Barnet sits. The station fronts onto Barnet High Street, a retail and commercial thoroughfare and A1000 main road.

8. 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 hospital in the yellow shaded boxes. The information on the location of schools is provided by the Department of Education database.

9. Surrounding the site is a mixture of commercial and residential uses. To the north is a large trading estate. Immediately to the south-east is Queen Elizabeth Girls Grammar School. Although the school is close to the police station, the terrain drops away from the police station, with the ground level at the school at least 5 – 10 metres below that of the police station. This, combined with the height of the police station, means that the school sits well below the antenna.

10. Almost directly opposite the police station is Barnet College, a further education establishment. This site presently has two antenna arrays on it, at a similar height to the police station. One of these arrays belongs to O2, and is being relocated onto the police station. To the north of the site there are a substantial number of antenna, including a tall tower with multiple aerials.

11. Given the proximity of the College and school to the site O2 are obliged to undertake consultation with the school prior to planning submissions. This consultation is undertaken as part of O2’s compliance with the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development.

12. 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.

13. At Appendix 2 a copy of updated guidance from the Stewart Report is presented to clarify issues relating to the location of antennae relative to schools. At the College the pupils are of a more mature age and it is highly likely that they will be users of handsets and use them during the school day. The School pupils will be younger and the Stewart Report clarification more significant. O2 are obliged to consult both establishments 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.

14. The appropriate health and safety equipment will be installed on the roof to protect persons working on the roof, at O2’s expense.

Commercial issues

15. The terms agreed with O2 are contained in the Exempt Appendix. The rent reflects the status of the site as a combined 2G and 3G location. The other terms are as agreed with O2 at Finchley PS.

Consultation

16. 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 Strategy.

17. 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. O2 undertakes all these consultations as the operator of the equipment.

C. Equality and diversity implications

1. 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 £500k per annum anticipates half this sum being generated by aerial sites. It was suggested in the Report to the Finance Committee of the 16th January 2003 that this be reduced to £100k.

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.

E. Legal implications

1. Apart from the contract with O2 there are not considered to be any other legal implications upon the MPA.

F. Background papers

• Finance Committee – 16 January 2003
• Finance Committee – 10 July 2003
• Finance Committee – 23 October 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)

G. 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