I am grateful to have the opportunity of a debate on the subject of telecommunication masts and planning guidance.

First, let me explain the background to the debate. The issue has been boiling on and off in the local and national media for more than a year. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who is my neighbour, raised the issue on the Adjournment on 1 March last year. There are now four appeals against planning refusal that affect a particular area of our two constituencies. Those appeals prompted me to apply for the debate.

I am grateful for the support of all councillors of all parties on the matter, and of others. It is not a party political matter and should not become so. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk regrets that he cannot be present for the debate, but he wishes to be associated with my remarks, as I was with his.

Back in March last year, my hon. Friend expressed the general fear that telecom masts would sprout up all over the countryside and that even areas of special landscape interest would be affected. The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, my hon. Friend the Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones), responded positively and sensitively to the points raised. He focused on the code of best practice that he published shortly afterwards in April, and promised that the code would be closely monitored. He also emphasised the sensible point that the best way forward was for all parties—mobile telecom companies, planning authorities, those locally affected and conservation groups—to maintain a constructive dialogue.

I took up the challenge on behalf of my Constituency. I have initiated and attended meetings with councillors and planning officials. Local authorities and others have had to learn a new technical language—including terms such as footprints, coverage and sight lines—in order to understand the key questions. Some authorities have not been as fleet-footed as they might have been. I am pleased, however, that Colchester borough council has eventually engaged the mobile telecom companies in serious discussions as to how best they could help to resolve each other's problems.

I invited all the companies making applications in my area to come and see me. Most came, and I should like to thank Orange, Cellnet and Vodaphone for taking the trouble to keep me informed. After some initial reluctance in some cases, they were all keen to explain their obligations under their licences and anxious to avoid unnecessary controversy.

I warned all the companies of the backlash that they would provoke if they pressed their proposals. Cellnet has wisely withdrawn its proposals, and Orange this morning informed me that it is withdrawing two of the four appeals that are pending. In a fax this morning, Orange states: You will be aware that we currently have failed to obtain Planning Permission on three locations already, and have lodged Planning Appeals on two of them. Since these appeals were lodged, and as a direct result of your Intervention, we have been in discussion with the other three operators". That is progress, I suppose. At least the operators are looking to use one shared facility, as opposed to a multiplicity of sites, although the situation is still unsatisfactory.

I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister is constrained from commenting on specific planning proposals that may at some future date end up on his desk requiring a decision. However. I make it absolutely clear that I am here today because of the potential threat to the historic landscapes of the Stour valley in my constituency. The skylines in and around Dedham vale, which so inspired John Constable two centuries ago, have remained almost unchanged until today. Not surprisingly, the threat of telecom masts is a highly charged issue in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk.

The region is an area of outstanding natural beauty—AONB—and has specific protections. I acknowledge that protection, which has prompted the companies concerned to give up hope of erecting masts within the AONB. However, two companies have written to inform me of applications outside the area that have been refused by the Colchester borough council which they propose to take to appeal. Sites such as Gun hill and Hill Top farm, as their names suggest, are prominent and visible. The structures, which are more than 20 m—or over 60 ft—tall, will be seen for miles around and will dominate the skyline.

Since my hon. Friend's Adjournment Debate last year and following our most helpful meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I have sought to reassure my constituents in several ways. First, I have told them that the world is watching the mobile telecom companies. They have special privileges in the planning process, as set out in planning policy guidance note 8. Colchester borough council advises me that the thread running through the guidance is that operators are obliged to provide a certain level of service under the Telecommunications Act 1984. That is a material planning consideration that should prevail over—or at least be given equal weight to—all other considerations. However, the companies have wisely been cautious about asserting those privileges hitherto—seeming to prefer agreement to imposition, as set out in the code of best practice.

Secondly, such impositions in sensitive areas in the face of furious local Opposition and national concern about heritage sites would be a setback for the industry. As I have said, in my meetings with the companies concerned, I warned them of the backlash that they would invite from Members of Parliament and conservationists. Thirdly, I continue to set great store by the Government's general commitment to the environment and the countryside. I have taken it on trust from my right hon. and hon. Friends that what is most feared for the Stour valley will not be allowed to happen.

There will now be appeals, and local people may be forgiven for feeling that there is a question mark over the Government's commitment. I am advised by the Colchester borough council planning department that, ultimately, the matter rests in the hands of Ministers. The code of best practice seemed intended to avoid such a confrontational approach by the companies. As far as the Council for the Protection of Rural England and other conservationists are concerned, the code will have failed if it allows companies to lodge appeals over the heads of the local planning authorities. PPG8 seems destined to bias any inspector's report in favour of development.

Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to address his reply to the general effects of applications for development just outside the boundaries of protected areas such as AONBs. Is the presumption in favour of development inviolate, or does protecting our natural heritage come first? A constituent reiterated that point in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which he said: concern would be much eased if we could be assured that, in the event of appeals against the local planning authority's decision, the Inspector would have both the power and the intention to take into account the environmental impact in each case. How will the balance be struck? Do the protections afforded to AONBs, national parks and other sensitive areas extend to sites outside the boundaries of such areas if the development in question would adversely affect the landscape? Crucially, in light of the appeals that are now going ahead, is it not time to announce a review of PPG8? Colchester borough council and I have consistently pressed for such action. Could there be any better way of signalling to the operators that their activities will be severely constrained in order to protect the environment if they press ahead with their plans?

In his reply, will my hon. Friend the Minister bear it in mind that technology may rescue us from making those choices sooner than we might think? How long will it be before mobile communications are taken over by satellites instead of terrestrial radio? What is the prospect of cellphone systems with much more local, much smaller, less visually intrusive antennae? The representatives of one company that visited me told me how technology would eventually be able to conceal transceivers in roadside signs, trees and lamp posts. What will happen tomorrow to the huge aerial arrays that are under consideration today? We are told that they will be taken down. But they will be far too useful to their owners for them to allow them to be taken down. Our planning law does not adapt well to the practice of temporary consents.

Christian civilisation has waited nearly 2,000 years for mobile phones. Our precious countryside, which has evolved over thousands of centuries, is changing faster than ever before in what amounts to the twinkling of an eye under the pressures of the modern world. Can we merely say no on this occasion? When we sing: And did those feet in ancient timeWalk upon England's mountains green?", are we simply referring to a commodity that the British people will be happy to trade in for an extra minute's conversation as they drive up the A12? If we reflect upon it, I think not. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will concur. I am grateful to him for giving up his time to attend the debate, and I look forward to his response.