sou · GTB397 · 2006-01-01 00:00:00 — Utredningen konstaterar alltså att den sammantagna samhälls- ekonomiska effekten av förslagen är klart positiv. Utredningen har övervägt om förslagen i detta betänkande kan ha effekter på den kommunala självstyrelsen, brottsligheten och det brottsförebyggande arbetet, jämställdheten mellan kvinnor och män eller möjligheterna att uppnå de integrationspolitiska målen. Vår bedömning är att förslagen inte påverkar något av dessa mål. The expansion of mobile communications networks requires the necessary antennas for the systems to be installed at suitable loca- tions. Antennas can either be placed on specially erected masts or towers or on tall or other facilities. The third generation mobile network (UMTS or ) is currently being expanded in . Three license-holders are networks - partly in partnership and partly in parallel. UMTS technology requires antennas to be closer together than they are in existing networks. According to the license conditions, 8 860 000 of 's inhabitants are to have UMTS coverage when the expansion is complete. The technology and coverage requirements have created a major need for antenna placements; operators have to a certain extent been able to use existing masts and other facilities, but the expansion has also required a large number of new masts to be erected over a short period of time. Swedish and European policy on electronic communications is based on the premise that services can be provided most efficiently by private enterprises in competition. One can also imagine that commercial incentives go a long way to providing a socioeconomi- cally efficient infrastructure. The infrastructure being built by the enterprises may not be the same as the one society feels is desir- able, however. The two most important reasons for this are firstly that the enterprises cannot be fully expected to take into account the uglifying effect of the masts on the urban and rural landscape, and secondly that commercially motivated networks can be expected to have a more limited and different geographical distri- bution than those which are desirable primarily from a regional development policy perspective. The benefits of making the infrastructure of an established operator accessible to the competition are firstly that uglification of the urban and rural landscape can be avoided and secondly that it can more rapidly create a more competitive situation, thereby ren- dering the market more efficient. The drawbacks are that such increased competition has a negative impact on the profitability of the established enterprise, and hence weakens the incentives to make future investments in the market. A regulation should be worded so that when discussing the location of masts, the benefit of having enough of them to create efficient infrastructure compe- tition and to have the desired coverage must be weighed against concern for natural and cultural values and for the urban and rural landscape. There is obviously less need to erect new masts if existing and new masts are shared by several operators, a concept which is nor- mally termed 'co-location'. Technical obstacles preventing co-loca- tion include the incorrect location of an existing mast based on the other enterprise's needs and plans. Another might be a shortage of space on the mast for additional equipment. The first obstacle mentioned here can be overcome by the enterprise modifying its radio planning and the second can often be removed by modifying or rebuilding the mast. If the operators cannot agree on co-location voluntarily, there are two courses of action available under the Act (2003:389), hereinafter referred to as ECA, to enforce such an agreement. The first alternative presupposes that the Swedish regulator of electronic communications, the and (), after having performed a market analysis, has ascertained the existence of at least one operator on a specific sub-market with significant power on that market, and that there are therefore grounds to take action to improve the competition. A feasible course of action in this case might be to compel the powerful market-player to allow co-loca- tion on its masts. The other alternative is based on an assessment of each individual mast. If PTS ascertains the necessity to share a mast in a specific case in order to protect the environment, public health or public security or to achieve the objectives of physical planning, it may issue a decree to this effect. There are two markets in which a decree ordering co-location might be relevant in order to promote competition. The first is Market 15: Access and call origination on public mobile networks, and the other is Market 18: Market for broadcasting transmission services. In both cases, it is of interest to avoid unnecessary masts on environmental grounds. There is also a connection between co-location on competition grounds and co-location on environmental grounds. If a decree ordering co-location is relevant on competition grounds, any con- sideration of issuing such a decree on environmental grounds will be more or less redundant. PTS has decided that there is currently sufficient competition on the market for access and call origination on public mobile net- works. has also decided that there is an operator with significant market power on the market for broadcasting trans- mission services - . PTS is considering measures that involve different forms of shared use of 's infrastructure. The Commission deems therefore that a decree ordering co-loca- tion on environmental grounds on the latter market (Market 18) is probably not relevant. UMTS base stations and masts have undergone large-scale expansion. Extensive mast-sharing has been brought about by this expansion and a market for the placement of antennas on masts has emerged. Substantial expansion still remains to be carried out before the UMTS operator license conditions have been com- pletely fulfilled. The actions of the operators are based on business principles and this often leads to voluntary agreements on mast co-location. New and smaller operators say, however, that they have found it difficult to establish co-location agreements. Co-location in accordance with the Act (ECA) Co-location on a mast on competition grounds in accordance with Chapter 4, Section 4 of the Act can only be relevant if at least one operator is found to have significant power on a particular market and obligating the aforesaid operator to allow others access to masts is adjudged to be an appropriate measure in order to improve competition. According to the Commission co-location on masts is currently not relevant on these grounds. A decree on co-location or other options for shared use of prop- erty or other resources can also be implemented if such a measure is necessary in order to protect the environment, public health or public security or in order to achieve the objectives of physical planning (ECA, Chapter 4, Section 14). Regarding this provision and how it is applied, it is the Commission's understanding that there are three obstacles preventing its more widespread use: The first obstacle is that the issue of planning permission for the erection of a new mast must according to PTS have been scrutinised by a local planning and committee prior to a request for co-location being considered. This naturally delays consideration of the co-location issue. The second obstacle, which is linked to the first, concerns the narrow wording of the basic criterion for co-location, namely that measures shall be required to protect the environment, public health or public security or to achieve objectives of physical planning. The third obstacle is that a decision on mast-sharing can only be taken when the mast has spare capacity. In other words, there is nothing in the current regulatory framework that requires a mast-owner to take measures to render additional antenna placements possible. The Commission is of the opinion that Chapter 4, Section 14 of the ECA should be amended so that it is more supportive of mast- sharing on environmental grounds. A balance must be struck how- ever between the need to protect the environment and the need not to distort market competition. Mandatory co-location can only be justified when the environmental effects are significant. It is unrea- sonable to demand co-location if the impact, environmental or otherwise, of a new mast is too insignificant to warrant consideration. There must therefore be some restriction imposed on the scope for enforcing co-location. The Commission proposes that it shall be possible to issue a decree on co-location or other scope for shared use of property or other resources if such a measure is of significance to protect the environment, public health or public security or to achieve the objectives of physical planning. Such an amendment would enable an application for co-location to be discussed immediately without having to wait for planning permission. The Commission has ascertained that it is often possible to adapt an existing mast at a much lower cost than a new one. The guy-wires on an existing mast can be reinforced, for example, to withstand a greater wind load or an additional section can be built onto a mast to provide space for more antennas. It is relatively common for masts to be shared on a voluntary basis and adaptation costs to be paid by the new operator. The most drastic measure that may be needed is the replacement of an existing mast with a new, larger one. The Commission does not deem however that it should be possible to require a mast to be replaced in order to facilitate co-location. We propose that reference is made in Chapter 4 Section 14 of ECA to the fact that a decree on co-location may be combined with an obligation for the party liable to install guy-wires or extend a mast or perform similar measures needed to facilitate co-location. Costs incurred for modifying or adapting the mast are to be met by the new operator. We further propose that such costs be considered when determining the level of remuneration for the actual placement. When a co-location matter is being decided upon, the comments of the municipality in which the mast is located make up a vital part of PTS's decision documentation. The Commission therefore pro- poses that an obligation to consult the municipalities in a co-loca- tion matter be added to the Ordinance (2003:396), unless it is obvious that such consultation is unneces- sary. Effects on other markets The Commission bases its reasoning chiefly on the prevailing situation on the mobile communications markets, with particular reference to the expansion of several parallel national networks. This does not mean however that the arguments lacks relevance for other markets. It is possible, for instance, to imagine a situation in which an operator is interested in placing antennas on a television mast pursuant to the legislation in Chapter 4, Section 4. An operator on the mobile communications market wishing to place an antenna on such a mast seldom causes any problems and signing an agreement with the mast-owner is normally all that is needed. It is also possible to imagine a situation, however, in which an operator wishes to place a new TV antenna on an existing TV mast. Such measures are also covered by Chapter 4, Section 14 of the ECA. Planning permission for new masts - amendments to the Swedish Planning and Act (PBA) Planning permission is required to erect electronic communications masts in accordance with Chapter 8, Section 2, Paragraph 5 of the Swedish Planning and Act (1987:10), hereinafter referred to as PBA. The municipalities have already been heavily burdened by planning permission applications for masts as part of the on- going expansion. According to the Commission, there is a lack of well-supported and uniform methods for describing and assessing the impact on the urban and rural landscape of the current expan- sion of masts for electronic communications. The inadequate inter-operator coordination regarding the expan- sion of mobile systems is another problem. The mobile operators are unaware of each other's plans, and it is relatively common for operators to apply for planning permission on adjacent sites for parallel expansion of competing systems when co-location would often have been both possible and desirable. This may result in municipalities allowing mast erections that are undesirable in the long run. The Commission therefore proposes it be made clear that an application for planning permission for an electronic communica- tions mast or tower must include an inquiry into the scope for co- location in an existing facility. If no such data is forthcoming, the planning and committee shall be able to order the appli- cant to remedy this error in accordance with Chapter 8, Section 20, second paragraph of the PBA. The Commission therefore proposes that a reminder of this provision be inserted into the Planning and Ordinance (1987:383). One problem with the mast expansion is that the masts are often only big enough to meet the mast-owners own needs, rendering mast-sharing impossible. Our proposed amendments to the ECA will introduce an obligation for mast-owners to adapt the mast to allow for additional placements. To a certain extent, however, this can be seen as capital destruction if it involves a new mast having to be converted or, in accordance with agreements between the par- ties, replaced to enable co-location. Placing masts very close to each other, especially when co-loca- tion is a possible option, can in general be seen as inefficient use of land and poor natural resource management. The Commission therefore proposes that it be possible to require a facility other than a '' (as the term is defined under Chapter 8, Section 2, first paragraph of the PBA) to be designed so that it allows the co- location of equipment within the same facility, if it, together with other existing or planned facilities of the same type, has a poten- tially significant impact on the urban or rural landscape and on natural or cultural values on the site and if co-location would reduce such impact. The facilities to which this requirement applies may vary over time bearing in mind technical development and market condi- tions, e.g. when previous monopoly markets are exposed to com- petition. In order to achieve a flexible piece of legislation over time, the Government should be able to stipulate which facilities are covered by the requirement for certain types of facilities to enable co-loca- tion. According to the Commission, it is currently only relevant to establish such a requirement for the erection of electronic commu- nications masts or towers. To ensure the municipality receives sufficient information from other actors, the Commission proposes that the provisions under Chapter 8, Section 22 of the PBA, concerning the obligation to allow stakeholders and others the opportunity to comment on a planning permission application, be supplemented to ensure the local planning and committee also consults actors who have or can be assumed to have the intention of erecting a facility of the same type nearby. The extended obligation to notify pro- vided for under the PBA shall apply to facilities, other than build- ings, upon which design requirements to facilitate the co-location of equipment can be placed. Overall effects of the amendments to the ECA and the PBA The Commission proposes amendments to both the ECA and the PBA to bring about more co-locations than currently is the case. The basic starting-point is for the number of voluntary agreements to rise. When operators cannot agree, however, it shall be possible to implement mandatory measures. The process involves PTS mediating in conflicts when the parties cannot agree, in those cases where mandatory co-location is an alternative in accordance with the current wording of Chapter 4, Section 14 of the ECA. Only in those cases where the conditions for co-location according to the new rules do not exist shall the operator be permitted to apply for planning permission for a new mast. The process in accordance with the ECA and the PBA is inter- connected in two specific respects, even though it is a question of two separate systems. Firstly, a decision to deny a co-location request in accordance with the ECA can be an important part of the inquiry that is to be carried out in connection with an applica- tion for planning permission for a new mast. Secondly, the requirements, which, according to the Commission's proposals, can be placed on the design of facilities to ensure that they can cope with future co-location in connection with a planning permission decision, will make it easier to decide on co-location pursuant to the ECA. The hope is however that the inquiry into the scope for co-location will primarily lead to more co-locations taking place voluntarily. The proposals lead to lower total costs for the operators in con- junction with antenna placement and mast construction. A faster placement process primarily favours new, smaller operators and may to a certain extent disadvantage large, well-established opera- tors. Both these effects are adjudged to be minor, however. The enterprises also face slightly higher costs for planning permission applications. In all likelihood, however, the total net effect for the enterprises is small but positive. PTS will have increased supervision costs as it will have to deal with more co-location matters than currently is the case. However, PTS finances its supervision costs via fees from registered opera- tors, so these increased costs will be paid by the enterprises and ultimately by their . The municipalities will have slightly increased costs for planning permission applications but on the other hand they will probably receive fewer applications. The municipalities should also have the opportunity to increase the fees they charge for this type of planning permission. The overall effect on the municipalities' costs for processing planning permission matters concerning masts is therefore adjudged to be slight or non- existent. In addition, our proposals are deemed to lead to clear environmental benefits in the form of fewer encroachments upon the landscape. Our assessment is that the effects of the proposed legislative amendments on investment incentives, the risks of anti- trust activities and hence the long-term efficiency of the market, will be small. According to the Commission, the overall socioeconomic effect of the proposals is clearly positive. The Commission has considered whether the proposals in this report could have effects on municipal autonomy, crime and crime- prevention efforts, gender equality or the potential for achieving integration policy objectives. Our assessment is that the proposals do not affect any of these objectives. lag om ändring i (1987:10) Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om (1987:10) dels att 3 kap. 14 § och 8 kap. 2 och 22 §§ skall ha följande lydelse, dels att 16 kap. 2 §, som tidigare upphävts, skall få nytt innehåll. I fråga om anläggningar som anges i 8 kap. 2 § första stycket skall föreskrifterna i 1–3 och 10–13 §§ om byggnader tillämpas. I fråga om anläggningar som anges i 8 kap. 2 § första stycket skall föreskrifterna i 1–3 och 10–13 §§ om byggnader tillämpas. En sådan anläggning som an- ges i 8 kap 2 § första stycket, som tillsammans med andra befintliga eller tillkommande anläggningar av samma slag kan få en bety- dande inverkan på stads- eller landskapsbilden och på natur- eller kulturvärdena på platsen, skall utformas så att den medger samlokalisering av utrustning i samma anläggning, om detta minskar denna inverkan och om det är lämpligt med hänsyn till det slag av anläggning som ansö- kan gäller och inte särskilda skäl talar emot det. I fråga om sådana skyltar och ljusanordningar som omfattas av krav på bygglov skall föreskrif- terna i 1 och 2 §§ om byggnader tillämpas. I fråga om sådana skyltar och ljusanordningar som omfattas av krav på bygglov skall föreskrif- terna i 1 och 2 §§ om byggnader tillämpas. I fråga om andra anläggningar I fråga om andra anläggningar än byggnader krävs bygglov för än byggnader krävs bygglov för 1. anordna nöjesparker, djur- 1. anordna nöjesparker, djur- liftar, kabinbanor, liftar, kabinbanor, campingplatser, skjutbanor, små– campingplatser, skjutbanor, små– banor och golfbanor, banor och golfbanor, 2. anordna upplag eller mate- 2. anordna upplag eller mate- 3. anordna tunnlar eller berg- 3. anordna tunnlar eller berg- rum som inte är avsedda för rum som inte är avsedda för tunnelbana eller gruvdrift, tunnelbana eller gruvdrift, 4. inrätta fasta cisterner eller 4. inrätta fasta cisterner eller kemiska produkter, som hälso- och miljöfarliga, och för hälso- och miljöfarliga, och för varor som kan medföra brand varor som kan medföra brand eller andra olyckshändelser, eller andra olyckshändelser, 5. uppföra radio- eller tele- 5. uppföra för elek- 6. uppföra vindkraftverk, om 6. uppföra vindkraftverk, om vindturbinens diameter är större vindturbinens diameter är större än eller om kraftver- än eller om kraftver- ket placeras på ett avstånd från ket placeras på ett avstånd från gränsen som är mindre än kraft- gränsen som är mindre än kraft- verkets höjd över marken eller verkets höjd över marken eller om kraftverket skall fast monte- om kraftverket skall fast monte- ras på en byggnad, ras på en byggnad, 7. uppföra murar eller plank, 7. uppföra murar eller plank, 9. anordna begravningsplatser, 9. anordna begravningsplatser, 10. väsentligt ändra anlägg- 10. väsentligt ändra anlägg- ningar som avses i 1–9. ningar som avses i 1–9. Bygglov för att inrätta eller Bygglov för att inrätta eller första stycket 4 eller 5 eller för första stycket 4 eller 5 eller för inte, om det är fråga om en inte, om det är fråga om en endast för en viss fastighets endast för en viss fastighets enligt första stycket 8 behövs enligt första stycket 8 behövs inte, om det på fastigheten finns inte, om det på fastigheten finns endast ett eller två enbostadshus endast ett eller två enbostadshus eller ett tvåbostadshus och par- eller ett tvåbostadshus och par- keringsplatsen är avsedd ute- keringsplatsen är avsedd ute- slutande för fastighetens behov slutande för fastighetens behov anläggs med stöd av väglagen anläggs med stöd av väglagen (1971:948) eller på mark som i (1971:948) eller på mark som i detaljplan har avsatts till gata detaljplan har avsatts till gata stycket 2 får kommunen besluta stycket 2 får kommunen besluta om undantag från kravet på om undantag från kravet på bygglov eller om längre gående bygglov eller om längre gående bestämmelser för vissa anlägg- bestämmelser för vissa anlägg- ningar avsedda för totalförsva- ningar avsedda för totalförsva- Innan lov lämnas, skall bygg- Innan lov lämnas, skall bygg- telse bereda kända sakägare och telse bereda kända sakägare och berörs samt sådan känd organi- berörs samt sådan känd organi- sation eller förening som anges i sation eller förening som anges i 5 kap. 25 § första stycket 2 till- fälle att yttra sig över ansök- ningen, om åtgärden 1.innebär en avvikelse från detaljplan eller områdesbestäm– melser eller 2.skall utföras i ett område som inte omfattas av detaljplan och åtgärden inte är en kom- pletteringsåtgärd och inte heller är reglerad i områdesbestämmel- ser. I det fall som avses genom kungörande på det sätt som anges i 5 kap. 24 §, eller genom en kungörelse som anslås på kommunens anslags- tavla, informationsblad om kun- görelsen som sprids till de boende som berörs och brev till kända sakägare och sådan orga- nisation eller förening som avses i 5 kap. 25 § första stycket 2. Ärenden om lov får inte avgöras utan att sökanden underrättats om det som till- förts ärendet genom andra än honom själv och tillfälle beretts 5 kap. 25 § första stycket 2 till- fälle att yttra sig över ansök- ningen, om åtgärden