Brighton & Hove phone mast Motion
Attached are (1) a motion just passed by Brighton & Hove Council re phone masts (basically calling on UK Gov to implement the demands of the Freiburger Appeal re Planning and (2) the speech given by the Councillor (Green - Bill Randall) who drew it up.
Omega see "FREIBURGER APPEAL" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566350/
No mention of this has appeared at all in the local media whilst local radio is hyping 3G virtually 24/7. Any Ietters sent to local paper The Argus on this are more than welcome. letters@theargus.co.uk
Best
Gary (Brighton)
Green Party Notice of Motion to Council: 10 March 2005
Mobile-phone masts
Bearing in mind the widespread and deep concern among the citizens of Brighton and Hove and the nation at large about the potential health risks of 3G mobile phone masts and TETRA masts. And noting the general disregard by telecommunications companies for the health of the public, amenity considerations and community wishes, this council urges the UK Government to:
· Halt the installation of further masts, until the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme two-year research study into their impact at the University of Essex is completed in November 2006.
· Decommission existing masts in sensitive locations, if the research demonstrates they are harmful, and introduce an exclusion zone that ensures no new masts are installed within 500 metres of schools, hospitals and domestic areas.
· Implement the Stewart Report recommendation that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process.
· Ensure the health and amenity concerns of local communities are taken fully into account in each stage of the decision making process.
· Implement the Stewart report recommendation that an Ombudsman be appointed to provide a focus for decisions on the siting of base stations when agreement cannot be reached locally, and on other relevant issues.
Proposed by: Councillor Bill Randall
Seconded by: Councillor Richard Mallender
Two petitions, a deputation and a demonstration
The people of Hanover and Elm Grove and Queens Park have certainly made their views clear about the 3G masts proposed for their neighbourhood and the rest of Brighton and Hove.
I am now asking this council to support them. Local democracy lies at the root of this issue. Is it right for an outside organization to impose its will on a city and communities in that city, when there is so patently an overwhelming opposition to their proposals? The citizens of Brighton and Hove don’t think so.
I have received more protests about the mast at the junction of Queens Park Road and Pankhurst Avenue than any other issue I have dealt with in the two years that I have been a councillor. There is a general and genuine disbelief in the community that Marconi are able to do what they like.
The more than 100 resident and families who have sent me e-mails, telephoned me, stopped me in the street or buttonholed me in shops are:
Outraged that they should have no say in whether or not a mast with possible health risks should be planted in the middle of their community next to houses and a short distance from two primary schools, several playgroups and Brighton General Hospital.
Outraged that the city planners appear to have no powers to prevent the mast going up.
Outraged that Marconi is clearly disinterested in their complaints. Indeed, the main thrust of Marconi’s standard response to those who have written is to blame the council.
Ideally, argues the man from Marconi “we would like a meeting with the planners and councillors so that more optimal use can be made of the council’s land and buildings, thus taking some of the development away from residential areas. Currently, we are not able to utilize the council owned land and buildings. Obviously, this has a significant impact upon the options available to us.’
So it’s all our fault.
Marconi belongs to the Mobile Operators Association. They don’t think much of local democracy and opposed a proposal by a House of Commons Committee that would require mobile operators to obtain planning permission for all new mobile masts, and would give parents a veto over siting.
The Daily Mail quoted MOA Executive Director Mike Dolan as saying ‘This would hold up the next generation of mobile networks to the detriment of businesses and communities.’
The community in Hanover and Queens Park couldn’t agree less. The motion speaks for itself. You will see we want a moratorium on the installation of new masts until current research is finished and installations removed if dangers are proved. We also want all masts brought within the planning system.
We realize we are up against the big battalions. The five major mobile operators paid the Labour Government £22.5 billion for the 3G licences. Gordon Brown has gratefully trousered the money and he and his colleagues have chosen not accept most of the recommendations of the Stewart Report. We urge this council to add their voice to those trying to change Ministers’ minds.
I should say I have prejudicial interest in this issue. I live only 200 yards from the mast site. More importantly, two of my grandchildren live only 100 yards from the site and two more of my grandchildren attend Elm Grove School, which is less than 400m from the site. Most of the letters and e-mails sent to me have been from concerned parents who also have a prejudicial interest. I am deeply concerned that the mast could affect the children’s health. I don’t know for sure if it will, but then neither do Marconi who have not responded to my request for reassurances about health risks. Nor do Underwriters Lloyds of London who refuse to insure mobile phone manufacturers against damage to health.
I believe Marconi and the other providers should prove beyond question that 3G and Tetra masts are safe before any further installations are put up.
I urge the council to support this view and move the motion.
From Mast Network
Omega see "FREIBURGER APPEAL" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/566350/
No mention of this has appeared at all in the local media whilst local radio is hyping 3G virtually 24/7. Any Ietters sent to local paper The Argus on this are more than welcome. letters@theargus.co.uk
Best
Gary (Brighton)
Green Party Notice of Motion to Council: 10 March 2005
Mobile-phone masts
Bearing in mind the widespread and deep concern among the citizens of Brighton and Hove and the nation at large about the potential health risks of 3G mobile phone masts and TETRA masts. And noting the general disregard by telecommunications companies for the health of the public, amenity considerations and community wishes, this council urges the UK Government to:
· Halt the installation of further masts, until the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme two-year research study into their impact at the University of Essex is completed in November 2006.
· Decommission existing masts in sensitive locations, if the research demonstrates they are harmful, and introduce an exclusion zone that ensures no new masts are installed within 500 metres of schools, hospitals and domestic areas.
· Implement the Stewart Report recommendation that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process.
· Ensure the health and amenity concerns of local communities are taken fully into account in each stage of the decision making process.
· Implement the Stewart report recommendation that an Ombudsman be appointed to provide a focus for decisions on the siting of base stations when agreement cannot be reached locally, and on other relevant issues.
Proposed by: Councillor Bill Randall
Seconded by: Councillor Richard Mallender
Two petitions, a deputation and a demonstration
The people of Hanover and Elm Grove and Queens Park have certainly made their views clear about the 3G masts proposed for their neighbourhood and the rest of Brighton and Hove.
I am now asking this council to support them. Local democracy lies at the root of this issue. Is it right for an outside organization to impose its will on a city and communities in that city, when there is so patently an overwhelming opposition to their proposals? The citizens of Brighton and Hove don’t think so.
I have received more protests about the mast at the junction of Queens Park Road and Pankhurst Avenue than any other issue I have dealt with in the two years that I have been a councillor. There is a general and genuine disbelief in the community that Marconi are able to do what they like.
The more than 100 resident and families who have sent me e-mails, telephoned me, stopped me in the street or buttonholed me in shops are:
Outraged that they should have no say in whether or not a mast with possible health risks should be planted in the middle of their community next to houses and a short distance from two primary schools, several playgroups and Brighton General Hospital.
Outraged that the city planners appear to have no powers to prevent the mast going up.
Outraged that Marconi is clearly disinterested in their complaints. Indeed, the main thrust of Marconi’s standard response to those who have written is to blame the council.
Ideally, argues the man from Marconi “we would like a meeting with the planners and councillors so that more optimal use can be made of the council’s land and buildings, thus taking some of the development away from residential areas. Currently, we are not able to utilize the council owned land and buildings. Obviously, this has a significant impact upon the options available to us.’
So it’s all our fault.
Marconi belongs to the Mobile Operators Association. They don’t think much of local democracy and opposed a proposal by a House of Commons Committee that would require mobile operators to obtain planning permission for all new mobile masts, and would give parents a veto over siting.
The Daily Mail quoted MOA Executive Director Mike Dolan as saying ‘This would hold up the next generation of mobile networks to the detriment of businesses and communities.’
The community in Hanover and Queens Park couldn’t agree less. The motion speaks for itself. You will see we want a moratorium on the installation of new masts until current research is finished and installations removed if dangers are proved. We also want all masts brought within the planning system.
We realize we are up against the big battalions. The five major mobile operators paid the Labour Government £22.5 billion for the 3G licences. Gordon Brown has gratefully trousered the money and he and his colleagues have chosen not accept most of the recommendations of the Stewart Report. We urge this council to add their voice to those trying to change Ministers’ minds.
I should say I have prejudicial interest in this issue. I live only 200 yards from the mast site. More importantly, two of my grandchildren live only 100 yards from the site and two more of my grandchildren attend Elm Grove School, which is less than 400m from the site. Most of the letters and e-mails sent to me have been from concerned parents who also have a prejudicial interest. I am deeply concerned that the mast could affect the children’s health. I don’t know for sure if it will, but then neither do Marconi who have not responded to my request for reassurances about health risks. Nor do Underwriters Lloyds of London who refuse to insure mobile phone manufacturers against damage to health.
I believe Marconi and the other providers should prove beyond question that 3G and Tetra masts are safe before any further installations are put up.
I urge the council to support this view and move the motion.
From Mast Network
Starmail - 16. Mär, 15:32
