Planning Bill — Mobile phone masts to require certificates — rejected — 25 Jun 2008 at 18:45

Jamie Reed MP, Copeland voted with the majority (No).

The majority of MPs voted against inserting two new clauses into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to planning permission for telecommunications masts.

The first clause said:[1]

  • Telecommunications masts: precautionary principle statement
  • Every application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus shall be accompanied by a precautionary principle statement which will be available for inspection
  • If the statement indicates that there is a threat of damage to health or the environment, it shall not be a ground for granting planning permission that there is a lack of full scientific certainty about the extent of the threat of damage to health or the environment.

The second clause which would have been inserted said:

  • Telecommunications masts: beam of greatest intensity certificate
  • Every application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus shall be accompanied by a certificate, which is available for inspection, setting out
  • the area and maximum range of the beam of greatest intensity,
  • the minimum and maximum distances at ground level of the beam of greatest intensity,
  • an explanation of the way in which the intensity of radiation falls off with distance from an antennae and of the level of the intensity of radiofrequency radiation,
  • an indication of where the beam of greatest intensity falls and the nearest and farthest distance from the antenna to these points.
  • Where a beam of greatest intensity falls on any part of any premises or land occupied by or consisting of an educational or medical facility, or of residential property, planning permission shall not be granted before first taking into account the information contained within the certificate, and any representations received in respect of that information.

These measures were the subject of three earlier private members that were talked out in one way or another.[2]

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 100.5%
DUP1 1022.2%
Ind1 1040.0%
Lab308 (+2 tell) 2088.9%
LDem0 48 (+2 tell)079.4%
PC0 30100.0%
UKIP0 10100.0%
Total:310 57059.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabaye
John McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLabaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive