Agenda item

To deal with matters raised by members of the public resident within the Borough, of which notice has been given in accordance with the procedures relating to public questions, motions or petitions set out in Paragraph 36 to 47 of the Council and Committee Procedure Rules in Chapter 4 of the Council Constitution.

(A)      Public Question(s)

(B)      Public Petition – Petition to stop the telegraph poles

(Details of any further petitions notified or questions submitted by members of the public will be circulated at the meeting).

The Council considered a schedule setting out the written question submitted by:

together with the response given.

The member of the public who had submitted the question was in attendance at the Council meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the question and response, as set out in the schedule, be noted.

The Mayor reported that a public petition had been received as detailed below.

Petition to stop the telegraph poles

The terms of the petition, which contained over 700 signatures, stated that:

“We the undersigned petition the council to stop the telegraph poles. We the undersigned petition Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council to use all means possible (such as a by-law) to stop the installation of any new telegraph poles throughout Southport (or other communities within the borough opposed to them) and to require the roll-out of fibre to the premises (or other future above ground initiatives) to use underground infrastructure within roads and pavements instead.

We call upon the council to urgently lobby The Minister of State for Data and Digital Infrastructure and the boroughs three Members of Parliament to review the extensive permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the “GPDO”) that currently requires limited or no consultation regarding the installation of telecommunications equipment in communities or specific planning permission.

Where a network builder (code operator) is not adhering to their statutory obligations we call upon the council to formally report the operator to OFCOM and ensure there is an investigation and enforcement action taken.”

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Lead Petitioner was advised of his right to make representations to the Council, not lasting more than 5 minutes. Mr. Neilson addressed the Council for 5 minutes in respect of the terms of the petition.

The Cabinet Member for Locality Services, Councillor Fairclough, responded to the petition and made the following points:

·       The Council was limited in what it could do and did not have powers to stop the erection of the telegraph poles.

·       The Byelaws (Alternative Procedure) England Regulations 2016 contained a list of categories for which a byelaw could be made. There was not a category within the Regulations which would allow the Council to make a byelaw that would prevent the installation of telegraph poles on the highway.

·       He considered the use of telegraph poles by the operator to be a cost-cutting measure.

·       There was no objection to lobbying the Minister and M.P.s., as requested by the petition.

·       He considered that permitted development rights restricted consultation with residents and should be in line with permit conditions.

·       There was no objection to reporting the operator to OFCOM.

It was moved by Councillor Fairclough, seconded by Councillor Atkinson and

RESOLVED:That:

(1)      the lead petitioner be thanked for submitting and presenting the petition to the Council; and

(2)      the petition be noted and that the Council be mindful of the petition in considering the Motion submitted by Councillor Morris - Openreach (Minute No. 123 below refers).