Debate contribution: Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 24 September 2024.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

24 September 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4644988

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion on the very important topic of mobile infrastructure in rural areas, and I welcome the contributions from Members during the debate. I fully agree with the need for high-quality mobile coverage in rural communities and, indeed, in urban parts of the region too. A modern and efficient telecommunications infrastructure is an essential and beneficial element of everyday living for our people and our visitors. Improving our digital infrastructure is vital to our economy, and planning has a crucial role to play in supporting the delivery of that infrastructure and facilitating appropriate proposals that deliver a high level of connectivity, while ensuring that the provision of such infrastructure is sited and designed to keep environmental impacts to a minimum. I fully support the public investment in, and roll-out of, the 4G Shared Rural Network initiative, and I am pleased to note the considerable progress that has been made by participating network operators. Ofcom is responsible for measuring each operator's coverage to ensure that it has met the individual requirements under its licence obligations. On 12 September, Ofcom published a statement on mobile network operators' compliance with their SRN geographical coverage obligations for June 2024. Members will be pleased to learn that Ofcom noted that BT, EE, Virgin Media O2 and Vodafone met the 88% UK-wide threshold, including coverage obligations for the North. I expect that Ofcom will update its assessments in the coming months to confirm that Three has also since met its obligation threshold. I also suspect that the gains made so far will improve mobile coverage in our rural areas. I turn now to the suggestion in the motion that major delays in the planning process have jeopardised the Shared Rural Network initiative. The planning system and the council planning authorities have played a key enabling role in the delivery of telecommunications infrastructure over recent years. Members will be interested to note that official planning statistics for the period April 2021 to March 2024 indicate that 165 planning applications for telecoms development have been approved. That demonstrates that the planning system is supporting appropriate proposals. It is worth pointing out that we have a planning system that is based on the rights of the applicant and of the objector, concerned resident, neighbour or whoever it may be. We could have a 100% success rate for any application if we simply had a planning application process in which someone applies and gets approval. On the other side of that, we could have a situation in which, if someone objects, nothing goes ahead. However, that is not the system that we operate. We have a system in which an applicant is invited to submit an application. The key to the success of that application, in my opinion, is that it is fully formatted and has all the information that is required when it is submitted. It then goes through a number of processes to ensure that it meets planning policy and regulations etc. Any objections that are raised are also assessed. Some of those objections may be major or minor, but they have to be fully interrogated and investigated before a decision can be made. I understand why people would want to have a speedy planning process. That is perfectly justifiable for a variety of reasons, but we also have to have an effective and efficient process. It is worth noting that it is right to deliver for rural communities across the North when it comes to increasing mobile network coverage, but it is also right that our planning system is capable of protecting communities and long-term public interests from inappropriate development proposals. My Department maintains a positive working relationship with mobile operators, and my officials remain committed to working constructively with the industry and other key stakeholders. I will turn to the criticism of me in the motion. Criticism of a Minister or a Member is fair enough, and, when justified, it is even fairer. Nevertheless, I want to put on the record that I have had two invites to meet from the telecommunications industry. One was from the umbrella group, which I did not fulfil, and senior officials attended it. The other one was from Vodafone UK, which I did fulfil, and I met that group. I have had no other correspondence from any other representatives of the mobile phone industry on their concerns about the planning system or about my role or the role of the barrier busting task force. If they wish to write to me again, I will give it due consideration, as I do all invites to meet. Since 2019, officials have continued to sit on the SRN working group, building a constructive working relationship with Mobile UK to help ensure that the initiative is progressed across the region. The Department was previously represented on a DFE cross-sectoral working group that led engagement with the industry and oversaw the publication of the mobile action plan on 23 June 2022. The mobile action plan sets out eight actions, including the creation of a DFE-led barrier busting task force, which commenced later that year. My Department is represented on that body, and officials have participated in the planning subgroup of the barrier busting task force. That is, rightly, chaired by local government, which, in this instance, is a representative from Belfast City Council. Both groups also include industry representatives. I note Members' concern about the fact that the group has met only twice. Following the debate, I will undertake to go back and see what barriers there are to the barrier busting task force's meeting. I will see whether we can ensure that the group meets more regularly and that the issues that are at the heart of concerns are dealt with in a way that they can be. I suspect that some in the industry are seeking permitted developments for new masts etc, but I do not think that that is the road to go down. Some Members expressed concerns about the visual impact that telecommunications masts can have in rural communities. Some residents have also had concerns that, in some instances, have been ill-informed. It is only right and proper that, when new significant development is proposed in an area, communities have a right to raise their concerns and that those are dealt with appropriately through planning legislation.

1,067 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification