North Wales Pioneer

25.11.05

THEIR advertising slogan, aimed at encouraging customers to talk more, is How Are You? But Deganwy residents are beginning to think that Vodafone don’t really care, after all.

Frightened householders have vowed to fight the erection of a three-metre radio mast, only yards from their homes.

They fear the proposed Vodafone 3G mast will effect their health and decrease the value of properties in the area.

It will be placed on the roof of the North Wales Badminton Centre, Deganwy, in a heavily populated residential area.

The centre are expected to receive around £4,000-a-year rent to house the mast, which will provide coverage for 3G phone users, but only in a 500m radius.

Residents, who have won the backing of county councillor Mike Priestly and AM Denise Idris Jones, have slammed the proposals as worrying and unnecessary.

One concerned voice, John Hurn, of Tan y Bethlan, who has a background in telecommunications, said: “We are frightened. These mobile phone companies might claim that there is no proof that it causes conditions like cancer, but only 30-years-ago we were being told thalidomide was safe.

“Most of the people within that area are of retirement age and would probably not use these services anyway. They claim that it is for business people in transit in the area, but there are no businesses within that 500m area.”

He said they were also concerned that it is Vodafone’s policy to encourage other mobile phone companies to share radio mast sites. This could lead to an influx of towers, he said.

A planning application has yet to be submitted.

Jane Frapwell, of Daly International, the company representing Vodafone’s application, said they had looked at other sites, but were found to be unsuitable.

She also quashed health concerns, citing World Health Organisation findings.

Under the terms of Vodafone’s 3G license, they, along with other service providers, must ensure 80 per cent UK coverage by 2007.

No one from the badminton centre was available for comment.

Elsewhere, Rhos on Sea campaigners, who are being supported by Clwyd West MP David Jones, have collected a petition of some 115 signatures opposing a planned 12ft mast at Colwyn Bay ’s cricket ground.

Mark Emberton, who is spearheading the opposition, said: “ We just can’t believe where it is sited, right next to the children’s play ground and a school, plus all the elderly people. Where this thing will be going, with the contours of the land, it will be level with our houses.”

Now Russia also wants to ban mobiles from children.

Best regards.

Agnes


Hide Cellular Phones From Children

Scientists are concerned with commodization of mobile communications. Although the damage of cellular phones’ electromagnetic radiation has never been proved, their safety can not be warranted either. Chairman of the Russian National Committee for defense from nonionizing radiation, Doctor of Science (Medicine), Professor, Yuri Grigirievich Grigoriev advises that children and teenagers are particularly sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. Judging by some data, long child’s conversations on the cellular phone may painfully affect in mature age.

To evaluate safety of cellular phones, consequences of long-term electromagnetic fields’ influence should be investigated. The overwhelming majority of medical investigation of mobile communications was performed abroad and was devoted to short-term effects. Domestic researchers have accumulated a lot of data about state of health of the people who worked for years with the sources of electromagnetic radiation. Summing up all these data, Yu. G. Grigoriev affirms that cellular phones are unsafe. Even a short telephone conversation often affects the brain activity: participants of experiment spend more time on fulfilment of test assignments, which is particularly important for students and schoolchildren, some people complain of headache and some distraction.

This annoyance is over soon but lengthy intense use of cellular communications result in more serious consequences. Some users suffer regularly from headaches, after a five-minute telephone conversation the ache being intensified. People complain of fatiguability, irritability, discomfort feeling, giddiness, difficulty in concentrating attention. The specialists who spent years working with sources of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation acquire vegetative disorders and neurasthenic symptoms. Experiments with young rats deserve particular attention.

As children and teenagers are particularly sensitive to negative impact of electromagnetic fields, therefore cellular communication is strongly contra-indicated to them. This opinion is shared by the majority of European scientists. In 2001, the European Parliament Research Group recommended to all EU member countries to prohibit children under 16 to use cellular phones. Physicians of Great Britain accepted similar recommendations in 1999, World Health Organization – in 2000, Russian physicians – in 2001. Unfortunately, physicians’ recommendations in Russia have no validity. The number of underage subscribers of mobile communications is steadily growing in Russia , and cellular phones manufactures develop special child’s models. In the meantime, adverse effect of electromagnetic radiation is superimposed on the influence of other unfavorable environmental and social factors. Within the last 12 years, Russian teenagers morbidity has increased several times. Although it is impossible to ensure healthy way of life for all teenagers, at least cellular phones should be immediately taken away from them.

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine_health/report-51927.html
http://www.informnauka.ru

--------

Hide Cellular Phones From Children
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1178177/

In Haaksbergen, The Netherlands, county officials have prevented provider KPN to install UMTS (3G) antennas in a new mast. The inhabitants of Haaksbergen are strongly against UMTS. The municipality of Haaksbergen right now does not give permits anymore. The KPN mast was placed 4,5 metres away from the site according to the building permit. Haaksbergen says KPN has to move the mast. In The Netherlands at this moment more than 40 municipalities are retaining permits for UMTS masts.

Information http://www.stopumts.nl

This is an area to watch which could succeed. Good ideas, sheer guts and persistence, and a determined team effort.

ORANGE PIPPED: Parishioners force phone mast U-turn

Exclusive by Justin Dunn
Wirral Globe
23.11.05

MOBILE phone giant Orange has been locked out of a church it is paying £6,000 a year to house one of its phone masts, the Globe can reveal.

Upset ministers- previously in favour of the mast - changed their minds after a campaign in the Globe by residents and councillors.

Last Wednesday evening, they removed the combination padlock installed in Wallasey's Manor Church Centre tower and replaced it with one of their own.

"The continued presence of the mast will seriously damage the work of the church within its community," said the Reverend Ian Smith.

"We believe that the process that has been followed leading to the installation of the mast by Orange has severely damaged the relationship of trust between Manor Church Centre and its neighbours."

Liscard Labour councillor Christine Jones was even more blunt: "The church and its local community are saying to Orange: Get your tanks off our lawn.

"They should take heed, too, because this vociferous protest is not going to go away."

Campaigner Dr Tom Bolton added: "Nobody now blames the church for originally being embroiled in this sinister shadow over our environment."

The mast - which has still not been activated - is inside the bell-tower of the church in Manor Road.

Reverend Smith has also indicated that negotiations with Vodafone to install a second mast "should cease with immediate effect".

An Orange spokesman told the Globe: "This matter is now in the hands of our solicitors and on that basis we are unable to offer a comment."

This trend is emerging in other areas. You wonder if there is a backlog at the Inspectorate, as appeals are cancelled, and new planning applications are put in for the same site, or a few yards away. Careful scrutiny of the notification documents can sometimes reveal errors.

Sandi


PLANNING LAW TWIST ANGER

Katherine Gibson
editorial@burtonmail.co.uk
22.11.05

A TWIST in planning law allowing a mobile phone antenna to be installed without planning permission has left a group of South Derbyshire residents feeling "gutted".

As reported in the Mail, campaigners living nearby the former Albion works off High Street, Newhall, were celebrating last week after a mobile phone operator withdrew a renewed bid to build a 45ft mast near their homes.

Mobile giant O2 pledged “no further action” would be taken over the proposed mast after withdrawing an appeal against the application’s refusal by South Derbyshire District Council. However, the firm has now confirmed a 12ft antenna is instead to be attached to the building — and planning permission is not required.

More than 200 residents from Avon Close and Queen’s Drive signed a petition objecting to the original mast proposal on health grounds, saying they feared emissions given off by masts could cause cancer. Part of the protestors’ fears centred around the land’s proximity to Elmsleigh Infant and Nursery School, in Queen’s Drive.

Avon Close resident Lynn Kaiser, one of the campaigners who spearheaded the drive to halt the plan, said: “We just can’t believe it.

“We just feel as if we have wasted our time. What was the point in everything we did if they can just go and do this? It defies belief.

“As far as we’re concerned, we are just as worried about the effects the antenna might have as the mast but we don’t think there’s anything we can do about it. We’re gutted.”

Queen’s Drive resident John Yeadon said: “I think it’s absolutely disgusting that they are allowed to do this, and so close to a school as well.”

Planners at the district council said when they threw out the mast proposal that they believed it would be of ‘substantial detriment’ to nearby residents.

An O2 spokesman confirmed the firm abandoned the original mast plan after deciding to install an antenna on the building.

All the company’s masts and antennae fall within EU guidelines on emissions.

Omega see "Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?" under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

A link between ill health and mobile phone mast radiation has not been proved or disproved by scientists.

Omega this is not true. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

A MAN being treated for prostate cancer could have a phone mast built next to his house.

Frank Swindell, of Sheep Pen Lane, said, 'I have had cancer already. I have just had 16 days in hospital — I have cancer of the vertebrae and have had radiotherapy.

'I have also got a clot on my lung and an irregular heartbeat.
'I am concerned, not just for my health, but for my wife and my neighbours, who will all be living in a very short distance of the mast.

'If you read some of the research into this, anything within 80 metres of one of these masts is not good for one's health.
'I am sure the phone company would argue against that but I have been looking at recent research about it.

Pat Swindell, Frank's wife said, 'It seems so unfair that these radio waves will beam down on us in a concentrated way like this for 24 hours a day.

'The whole exercise has had a damaging effect on his health, his morale and I feel we are very much up against big business.'
Frank added, 'The whole thing has been a tremendous worry and hasn't helped at all with my health problems.'

Mr Swindell has many other concerns about the construction of the mast.

He said, 'We are equally worried about it from a safety point of view.

'This is a very busy corner — there is enough accidents there already.

'If you put another two obstructions, a base station four metres high and a tower eight metres high, you are going to have visibility problems.

'It all adds to the safety worries of the junction.'

A spokesperson for Orange said, 'A planning application is due to be submitted over the next few weeks and will be subject to all the normal planning conditions as with any new development.
'In terms of siting in general, it is not always possible to site base stations away from populated areas due to the low operating power which means that the signal doesn't travel a great distance.

'Therefore, if people want to be able to use their mobile phones while at home or work, and inside buildings, we have to site our installations close enough to support their network demands.

'Many people view mobile technology as a new invention and believe that we should be cautious until we know what the effects may be.

'However, mobile phones are just a new way of using old technology.
'Radio Frequency has been around for over 40 years and there are many other forms of RF already in our environment whether we are at home, in a classroom or outside.

'No substantiated evidence exists to date linking exposure to RF emissions from mobile phone technology with adverse human health effects, despite significant global investment into this type of research.

Omega this is not true. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

A spokesperson for Lewes District Council confirmed that Orange were in discussions with planners but no formal...

22 November 2005

Bath Chronicle

11:00 - 22 November 2005

A Mobile phone giant is seeking to renew permission to put up a mast in the heart of Bear Flat. O2 won a planning appeal to site a mast on land between Bloomfield Road and Wellsway last year, but concerted opposition from residents convinced the company to seek an alternative site.

However, amid heavy opposition to its preferred alternative at Alexandra Park, the company has now reapplied for a licence to begin work on the original site, for which it still has planning permission.

Cllr David Bellotti (Lib Dem, Lyncombe) said he feared O2 would proceed with work if it felt it would not succeed with an application for a mast at the park.

He said: "We are potentially faced with three masts within 400 yards of each other surrounding us. The head of the Mobile Operators Association has now promised to come to Bear Flat, bringing representatives of the five major operators with him, and talk about where a single shared mast could be sited.

"We are really besieged by these companies in the conservation area, all of them wanting a separate site, and I think the residents have every right to be as militant as possible in opposing them."

Meanwhile, a coalition of residents fighting both O2's plans and an application from Hutchinson 3G to put a mast on top of the Smiles store at Wellsway is continuing its campaign.

Sue Boyle, of the Friends of Alexandra Park, made the case against O2's plans for the park at last week's full council meeting, and to call for stronger backing from the council to prevent them.

She said: "When we first learnt of the O2 proposal on September 1 this year, we were confident that the park would be automatically protected from such an invasive and damaging development. There are commitments set out so clearly in the conservation and policy documents, to which this council is committed and which are intended to protect this World Heritage City from abuse.

"Since September, we have become increasingly concerned that despite the council's expressed commitments, Alexandra Park, and therefore other local parks and gardens of historical interest and other visually important spaces, might be in jeopardy."

At the same meeting, the council voted to start work on a policy which, when it comes into force in a year, will afford greater protection to sites such as Alexandra Park from phone mast applications.

From Sylvia

Mike Clark, presenting at the TETRA Conference in Dorset, said it was unlawful to experiment on children:


Three years to see if mobiles hurt kids

November 20, 2005

A world-first study will begin in Australia this week to find out if mobile phones are damaging the health of children.

The study of 12- and 13-year-olds will measure if mobile-phone use affects factors such as hearing, memory, sleep and ability to concentrate.

It follows recommendations by the World Health Organisation that more research be urgently done on whether children's central nervous systems are more vulnerable than adults' to the effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Australian children have one of the highest rates of mobile-phone ownership in the world - almost half of those aged 13 to 15 and a third of those aged 10 to 13 own one.

The National Health and Medical Research Centre study, which will follow 300 Melbourne children over three years, is being conducted by the Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research.

The children will have their cognitive functions, hearing and blood pressure tested at regular intervals, ACRBR executive director Dr Rodney Croft said. "These are areas that are likely to be affected, if there are any effects," he said.

Several studies have shown EMR exposure causes no harm to the physical development of children over age two or a higher likelihood of cancer.

Dr Croft said the research was a response to community concerns about children and mobile phones.

"What we are working on is the precautionary principle," he said.

WHO radiation program coordinator Dr Mike Repacholi, who was in Australia last week as part of a workshop on EMR and health effects at Melbourne's Swinburne University, said filling the gaps in research was a high priority because of the increasing number of children using mobile phones.

"Children as young as five are using mobile phones," Dr Repacholi said. "Yet international standards on exposure [to EMR] are the same for children and adults."

He said children absorbed more radiation because of their smaller heads and thinner skulls. This could possibly cause behaviour, learning and concentration problems.

"So the net result is that children do receive higher exposures," he said. "We could see some subtle effects on the central nervous system."

In January, the British Government's chief adviser on mobile phones, Sir William Stewart, said children aged three to eight should not use mobiles and older children should strictly limit their use until more research had been done.

Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association spokesman Randal Markey said new research was welcome but more than 400 studies on mobile phones had already shown no health consequences, either for adults or children.

Mr Markey said advice from the WHO, the Health Council of the Netherlands and the US Food and Drug Administration was that limiting the use of mobile phones by children was unnecessary.

"The present information does not support that mobile phones for children should be limited," he said.

Omega this is not true. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

Children and mobile phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1063256/

Petition to remove Dr. Mike Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/877606/

--------

Three years to see if mobiles hurt kids

In the USA last year, The EPA came under fire because of its proposed “Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study” (CHEERS) that proposed exposing children to household chemicals that are known to be toxic to see the health effects on the kids over a two year span. I believe that proposal was finally cancelled due to much opposition. It was seen as like using children as lab rats in a study organised by the chemical industry that now is the EPA biggest “partner” in research. Ethical considerations aside, a mere two years is nowhere long enough to pick up long term health problems, such as cancer. The study would have run the two years, no increase in cancer rates would have been the likely outcome with the predictable headlines “Chemical cancer risk for children disproven” appearing nationally.

Now we have an Australian study (below) that claims to be be working on the precautionary principle by using 12-13 year olds to function as lab rats for testing effects of their mobile phone use. Will the researchers first be advising the kids of the possible consequences of their cell phone use? Will they be advicing them to limit their use, following Sir William Stewart’s recommendation? Will the study exclude kids who just text message and thus do not get the exposure that one gets when the phone is held against the head? This study has NOTHING to do with the precautionary principle. It also only runs for three years which is far too short to pick up any increased cancer or acoustic neuroma risk that it is known to take at least 10 years to be apparent. Three years is simply not long enough to determine if there is a long-term health hazard but that won’t stop the “Study finds kid’s use of cell phones safe” headlines if they fail to find anything.

Remember Michael Repacholi’s criteria for children and cell phone studies: “where more science is needed to rule out concerns” and that is where this study is likely headed.

Don Maisch


Three years to see if mobiles hurt kids

The Sidney Morning Herald
Date: November 20 2005

By Danielle Teutsch

A world-first study will begin in Australia this week to find out if mobile phones are damaging the health of children. Go to full article at:

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/11/19/1132017024221.html

Source: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=320

Glebelands Otterton EX9 7JJ

12th October 2005

Rep Nos. 3581.D4 & 3581.R1

Dear Mr Pritchard

Thank you for your letter of 26th September 2005. As explained in our recent telephone conversation, the enclosure that came with this letter, was unfortunately not as stated, but luckily Mrs Wright contacted me a few days ago about this matter, and kindly posted me a copy of the EDDC response.

This letter and all points raised in it, is in addition to the letter dated 12th October 2005 from my Solicitor, Mr Alan Meyer, and I wish to make the following supplementary statement on the EDDC Proof of Evidence:

1. In my original letter to Claire Rodway dated 24th October 2003, I brought up the issue of lawful mast/antenna heights for the purpose of GPDO applications. It is essential that detailed reference is made in the Local Plan Policy to clarify for all time, to the phone companies and their agents, the planning officers and the district councillors what the exact lawful measurements must be for any application made under GPDO. As a result of not properly determining lawful mast/antenna heights, there have already been serious, unpleasant and time-consuming planning administration problems arising, one example is the case at Beare Hamlet.

On 16th August 2005, the Planning Inspectorate issued Revised Guidance regarding the Telecoms Appeal Code - please see copy enclosed - which related to the need for Local Planning Authorities to check properly the height of 15 metre masts to see that they properly qualified as 'permitted development' if correctly measured as set out in the final paragraph of this Appeal Code to avoid applications submitted on 'a false basis'.

I understand this Guidance arose partially out of yet another Vodafone 'overheight' mast application and many Councils' wrong interpretation of mast/antenna height measurements allowed under GPDO, thereby disadvantaging the residents living near certain mast sites.

Please will the Inspector ensure that all the enclosed Inspectorate guidance that sets out what constitutes lawful GPDO mast/antenna heights is included in the Local Plan to ensure complete clarity? This will prevent any further applications being processed by East Devon District Council on a 'false basis'.

2. The EDDC Proof of Evidence seems to contradict itself regarding PPG8 and ICNIRP guidelines. The Proof does not take into account current High Court Decisions, i.e. the Skelt case and the Harrogate case which both clearly state that ICNIRP certification and guidelines are not by themselves sufficient consideration of health issues.

In the recent Harrogate Court of Appeal Judgment, it was determined that health concerns are relevant in exceptional circumstances. It is therefore essential that the Local Plan follows the law and includes health concerns because there may well be 'exceptional circumstances' present.

In the second Stewart Report issued on 11th January 2005, Paragraphs 62 - 64, Professor Stewart stated that an element of the population are Electro-Sensitive, and their well-being can be adversely affected by the insensitive siting of masts. Mobile Phones and Health 2004: Report by the Board of NRPB. Please refer to the NRPB Executive summary (Published 11th January 2005), Heading 'Sensitive groups', Paragraphs 62 - 64. I would also like to draw your attention to the enclosed Sunday Times report dated 11th September 2005, which states that "…The Health Protection Agency has now reviewed all scientific literature on electro-sensitivity and concluded that it is a real syndrome. The condition had previously been dismissed as psychological."

3. Obsolete technology/apparatus. The Telecommunications Paragraph 10.40 of the East Devon Local Plan - January 2002 states, "Telecommunications is a rapidly expanding and evolving technology. As this technology develops, existing infrastructure will become obsolete. It is a requirement under the 1984 Telecommunications Act for redundant apparatus to be removed."

This paragraph follows the law, is very clear and contains a safeguard against abuse or ignorance of planning procedures. The wording is pro-active, and allows for the removal of 'obsolete' masts/antenna equipment. The wording is up-to-date in its mention of the rapid evolution of new, less invasive and more efficient technology that is already available in this country. In view of the new technologies becoming available, i.e. fibre optic cabling, broad band, communications satellites, more efficient mobile phones, etc, that will lessen the need for masts, it would be wrong not to include the words 'obsolete' and 'redundant' apparatus in the new Local Plan Policy.

In EDDC's Proof of Evidence, the words, "Planning permission granted will be conditioned so as to require the demolition and removal of all works undertaken, both above and below ground, should or when any facility ceases to be used or falls into disrepair", are so unclear and loose they will create a loophole and create confusion. This loophole would effectively allow any phone operator to secretly replace 'obsolete apparatus/technology' with different, possibly more dangerous technology without anyone's knowledge or permission.

A further problem with the EDDC Proof is that as each type of technology, i.e. 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G etc, will have a different effect and impact on the local community and landscape, it would allow the original planning permission to be used as ongoing 'blanket cover' for any other type of technology. Change of technology does constitute change of use.

4. UK Acts of Parliament and PPG8 give legal protection to World Heritage sites, AONBs and other sensitive conservation areas and gives them priority over all other development, including telecommunications.

In the enclosed copy pages from Mr I C Clark of the DTLR on Page 2, paragraph 3, he states, " …. In view of our plan-led planning system of development control, a local planning authority should include in its development plan specific planning policies relating to a World Heritage Site in its area. This is so that the sites features of interest and importance and the need to protect them would be given due weight when a planning application is determined. Furthermore UNESCO now expects all nominations of sites for World Heritage status to be accompanied by managements plans".

As set out in the enclosed copy pages from the official guide to the Jurassic Coastline, World Heritage status means that Sites should be protected conserved presented and passed intact to future generations. It also means that this designated area recognises nationally important landscapes, conserving both the Site and the wider countryside that surrounds it." It is therefore essential that the EDDC Local Plan takes into account this exceptional area's needs, which by definition are to keep it natural, i.e. free of ugly, unnatural, inappropriate structures.

The Local Plan should accommodate the rapid advances that are constantly becoming available in telecommunications technology. There are now efficient alternatives to mast structures already in use, i.e. fibre optic cabling, communications satellites, more efficient phone antennas, all of which remove or lessen the need for masts. These advances together with new 'mast free' telecommunications technologies - make it possible to avoid siting any mast/antenna in sensitive and protected areas.

5. I attended and spoke at the Public Inquiry on the 18th May 2005 and some of the points I raised were agreed and were to be included in the Supplementary Planning Guidance as stated by Claire Rodway and this would be forthcoming. As yet, I have not seen the Supplementary Planning Guidance, as it has not been put out for public consultation. Please will the Inspector investigate at what stage of progress the work on the Supplementary Planning Guidance has reached and whether it has been completed yet?

As I cannot rely on the 'unseen' Supplementary Planning Guidance to include the points that were agreed at the Public Inquiry, I am extremely worried that the Inspector with the imminent closing of the Inquiry may not realise that my concerns (and other peoples concerns) addressed by him through the Public Inquiry route have not been recognised or implemented in the EDDC Supplementary Guidance.

There is a strong possibility that all these issues will be watered down by the phone companies, and this seems very wrong because myself and others did take the time and trouble to attend and speak at the Public Inquiry and go through all the proper democratic processes. It now seems that our only opportunity to have the matters already agreed at the Public Inquiry for inclusion in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, is for the Inspector to consider the points raised in this letter. I have to make sure that everything that I raised and was agreed at the Public Inquiry is in this letter and is now put to the Inspector for his opinion.

Please will the Inspector keep the Public Inquiry open until he has investigated why there no mention in the EDDC Supplementary Planning Guidance for a Policy specific for the first British natural World Heritage Site and its surrounds here in East Devon? Before the Public Inquiry is wound up, please will the Inspector ensure that such a Policy is prepared and the public given a sight of it, before and after, he accordingly makes his recommendations to modify the Local Plan Policy? Please will the Inspector investigate why this Government requirement has not been addressed before now?

Please may I have a copy of all the Inspector's recommendations on Telecommunications in the Local Plan Policy including the Supplementary Planning Guidance? Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

I have enclosed two other copies of this letter and its enclosures for your use.

Yours truly,

MRS J D LEE


Mr Peter Pritchard
Programme Officer East Devon Local Plan Public Inquiry
Royal Avenue
Exmouth Devon EX8 1EN

BY BEN MURCH
Bath Chronicle

11:00 - 19 November 2005

Campaigners fighting plans to put mobile phone masts near their homes will soon have another weapon in their arsenal. In response to a series of high profile battles to block masts, Bath and North East Somerset Council is spending £10,000 to create a supplementary planning document (SPD), which will give its decisions added weight in appeals.

It could prevent a repeat of the situation where phone company O2's application for a mast at Bear Flat was approved on appeal after being opposed by the council.

The council opted for the SPD over a planning guidance note, which is quicker and - at £3,000 - cheaper to produce, because it puts them in a much stronger position legally.

Cllr Colin Darracott, (Lib Dem, Walcot), the council's executive member for economic development, said the new powers were vital to protecting the unique beauty of the World Heritage Site, and the surrounding countryside.

He said: "We need the strongest possible planning tool that we have to try and control the proliferation of telecommunications masts through the city.

"Most of us, in most wards, have a problem finding the least objectionable place to put these masts. The planning system at the moment is against us. We lose on appeal."

Cllr Darracott said the strongest objection to masts in Bath was that they looked ugly and that there were ongoing concerns over the potential health risk they posed.

To combat this, he said that as well as having stronger powers to say masts should be placed, the council should consider adopting powers to demand attractive architectural features, such as gargoyles, to be created to hide masts.

He added that although there was no firm evidence proving masts were harmful to health, he personally believed people should be more concerned about children actually using mobile phones than living near masts.

Omega is firm evidence proving masts arre harmful to health. See under: http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

The exact terms of the new document will be drawn up by council officers and presented to executive member for sustainability Cllr Gerry Curran (Lib Dem, Twerton) for formal adoption in a year.

It will include demands that phone companies examine all possibilities for mast sharing, that steps are taken to minimise the aesthetic impact of masts and equipment cabinets on the environment, and that residents are properly consulted.

Cllr David Bellotti, above, (Lib Dem, Lyncombe), who has been heavily involved in the anti-mast campaigns near his Bear Flat home, said: "We want the strongest planning guidance we can possibly have.