Agenda item
Mobile Network Coverage
- Meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Wednesday, 10th April, 2024 5.30 pm (Item 64.)
- View the background to item 64.
Purpose:
To receive a presentation from Gareth Elliott, Director of Policy and Communications at Mobile UK, as a result of a Motion considered by Council on 27 September 2023 regarding mobile network coverage across the District.
Recommendation:
That the Committee Resolves to:
1. Note the contents of the presentation from the Director of Policy and Communications.
Invited:
- Gareth Elliott, Director of Policy and Communications at Mobile UK;
- Councillor Andy Graham – Leader of the Council;
- Phil Martin – Assistant Director, Business Services.
Minutes:
Gareth Elliot, Director of Policy and Communications for Mobile UK provided a presentation to the Committee and explained that Mobile UK was the body that represented the four major mobile network operators; which were listed as Three, Vodafone, EE. and Virgin/O2. Other networks were not included because they did not own the infrastructure and therefore used the 4 aforementioned companies’ infrastructure.
It was explained that the material presented was for the purposes of raising awareness and providing information to challenge perceptions and myths. Mobile UK could not provide specifics on applications because that was in line with commercial decisions made by the operators.
The difference between 4G and 5G were explained and how it was essential to for 5G to be implemented. It was explained where 5G sat on the health spectrum of radiation, and the importance of 5G access and wireless connectivity for a multitude of services including healthcare, jobs digital inclusion.
The barriers to deployment were summarised and identified including leadership, planning delays, resources, localised objections. Hence why Mobile UK desired to help Councils with incentives and campaigning of digital champions etc. Examples of structures were presented and technical requirements were explained and the density of infrastructure required was displayed with mast options shown. More information could be provided with a library of resources and a podcast.
The following points were raised by the Committee and responses provided by Gareth and/or Officers:
· It was queried if West Oxfordshire was only covered by one network It was explained that planning restrictions in the UK make it difficult to build infrastructure and if you want coverage you need a mast.
· It was asked if there were any developers required to provide a mast infrastructure. It was explained that this was not the case and that the developments were often covered with existing infrastructure. It could be useful for Mobile UK to know when developments were coming to allow some proactivity.
· It was queried if there had been any mast applications in WODC and if those applications were welcomed or objected. It was explained that ? Norton was one example.
· It was suggested that if a map could be provided of all the masts requires, a provision could be made for in the Local Plan. It was explained that the network operators don’t provide that or share that data and they compete for contracts with applications based on the need for capacity in that area. Another Member confirmed he had seen them in planning but most were not problematic unless they involved aesthetics of listed buildings etc.
· It was asked if there was a system of roaming and if that was an issue that needed to be addressed by the operator. It was explained that Mobile UK didn’t think that roaming was a solution and you could not roam without the infrastructure.
· There was a query asked around central government budgets and what the process was for Councils to report a black spot or area with very bad coverage and how that could be actioned. It was explained that this was for the shared network to decide. There was a real struggle to engage with Councils at the planning levels.
· There were various technical questions asked regarding signal coverage. It was explained that the closer you are the better your signal. The height of the masts were to enable more coverage and there were limitations therefore specific infrastructure was required.
· A question on what power sources and broadband linkages were required was asked. It was explained that it was dependent on the location whether microwave links or fibre was used.
· A query was raised about noise and whether sounds were omitted from the masts. It was explained that that was dependent on how big they were and what type cooling was required with generators.
· It was asked if BTPS10 switch off would affect anything. It was explained that that was a landline network switch off (land line network) and owned by open reach and not mobile. There was no control over that by Mobile UK. On the other hand, the turning off 2G/3G was raised that it may affect Council services in terms of parking metres, telecare transition etc. and they were encouraged to engage with suppliers and taking necessary actions. The AD for Business Services confirmed that WODC has looked into this and this would not affect any of the services.
· A Member noted that they found the session very informative and were ready to advocate for more mobile infrastructure in the area as required; however, they wanted to know why there was a lack of mobile coverage in certain areas. It was explained that the easiest answer was that Mobile UK was there to inform Councils on how to build better relationships and create an understanding on why an application has come in and to challenge perceptions. There was a coverage of 95% of areas and it was mostly privately funded. Other holistic solutions were required to be examined such as satellite, on demand masts on wheels for disaster relief areas and concerts etc.
· One Member requested of a map of WODC and what was the cost of repeater antennae. It was explained the cost of various technologies mentioned was unknown but there were changes in regulations to allow boosted coverage in your house and Wi-Fi calling etc. The map would need to be requested from the providers.
· Another Member asked if the mast used by Thames Valley Police could be used. It was explained that using existing infrastructure was not impossible and they work with other companies to use their infrastructure.
· Where churches could be used as a potential for masts to be installed was queried. It was explained that they could potentially be used and have been; however, there are often issues with, not only listed building status and rules around that, but also access, safety parameters, fragility and viable power linkages which renders them unsuitable.
The Leader thanked Gareth for his presentation and explained that the commercial considerations were now realised and this issue would be discussed further as to how it needs to addressed in the area. The Executive would now take forward and address the issue further.