Arun agrees to toughen policy on phone masts

The policy will see open spaces such as Avisford Park recreation ground in Rose Green or housing areas like the Trees Estate ruled out as locations for the often controversial structures.

The first stage of implementing the ban was passed when Arun's policy development scrutiny committee decided on Tuesday to support the move.

Its members agreed that no telecoms masts should be placed on the council property where they would be an eyesore.

The masts will also be ruled out when their positions would be detrimental to the amenities of an estate and were likely to devalue neighbouring properties.

The same criteria will be used where Arun leases land to a third party which wants to put in a mast or where an existing lessee applies for a mast.

The committee's decision will be passed to the council's cabinet of senior members to be ratified to become formal council policy.

Michael Knight, the council's deputy head of surveying and estates, told the committee that Arun had lacked a policy regarding the placing of such masts.

'While the council has so far received few applications for the siting of masts on its own land and premises, it is considered appropriate that any future applications should be dealt with on a clearly defined basis,' he stated.

Most council land took the form of housing estates, parks and open spaces, car parks, public toilets and areas for concessions.

Of these, housing and recreation grounds and gardens would be the most controversial places for phone masts to be installed. Top officers in both council departments had expressed their concern about the prospect of masts being put in their respective areas.

But Mr Knight warned that Arun had to act responsibly. He stated: 'The council as landowner in refusing an approach to position a telecommunications mast on its own land must exercise its control with caution.'

Cllr Alan Stainton (Felpham West) welcomed the likely adoption of the policy: 'This policy puts down a footprint on where the council stands on this issue.'

Cllr Paul Wotherspoon (Middleton) said: 'This policy reflects residents' views. It's very pleasing to see Mr Knight's report.

'It would be in our financial interest not to have this policy because you do receive substantial sums in return for the masts.'

However, the policy falls short of a complete ban on phone masts on every Arun property. Mr Knight pointed out that councillors might think it acceptable for a mast to be installed on a site such as the Fitzleet multi-storey car park in Bognor town centre.

The policy also only refers to Arun's role as a landowner. It is independent of the council's duty as a planning authority. This is governed by planning guidance issued by the government and taken into account when applications are decided.

The guidance lists certain grounds on which masts can be rejected. Health concerns are excluded.