Haringey council on Monday 14th Nov 2005 voted unanimously for the following motion. Both the labour and Lib Dem leaders said the government is wrong on the issue.

Haringey Council Motion

MOTION

This Council notes:

• Haringey residents' public health concerns about mobile phone masts, with particular concern about the siting of masts near to schools, hospitals and residential properties

• Legislation is weighted in favour of mobile phone companies and Haringey Council currently has little power to act on our residents' concerns

•Masts below 15m are exempt from planning permission

• The Council has established a Scrutiny Review on Mobile Phone masts to identify residents' concerns and produce recommendations designed to address them at the earliest possible opportunity and looks forward to its full report.

This Council believes:

• More national research is required into the potential health risks of mobile phone masts

• Councils like Haringey should be able to take health concerns into account when considering grounds for rejecting mobile phone mast applications.

• Mobile phone companies should be required to make a full planning application for masts of any size and should always be required to provide a statement of the intensity and direction of the signal

This Council resolves:

• To write to Haringey's two Members of Parliament requesting they lobby Ministers for a moratorium on mast sites near to schools, hospitals and residential properties

• To ask our Members of Parliament to support any Bills in Parliament which would mean safer siting of phone masts, including giving Councils clear authority to reject mast applications on local public health grounds

• To write to all other London Boroughs to ask for their support in in pushing for health concerns to be relevant

Tipperary Today

The County Development Plan should be changed to ensure no mobile phone masts are located within one kilometre of schools, hospitals, churches and other populated places, it was proposed at the November meeting of South Tipperary County Council.

Cllr Mattie McGrath made the proposal saying that people should "err on the side of caution" where the telecommunication masts were concerned.

In his motion to the County Council, Cllr McGrath asked that wording be inserted into the Development Plan saying, "no phone masts/antenna can be located within one kilometre of housing developments, schools, hospitals, churches and amenity/community facilities."

He is also calling for existing masts located near schools, childcare facilities and playgrounds, to be removed immediately.

Explaining his concerns, in a statement to The Nationalist, Cllr McGrath said he based his proposal on recommendations of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

He said he also took into account scientific evidence that emissions from the masts cause adverse health affects.

"It is the responsibility of the Council to ensure the health and safety of the public is not compromised," Cllr McGrath said.

At the Council meeting Cllr McGrath received support from fellow councillors.

Cllr Pat English said serious health questions remain about mobile phone masts, and Cllr Liam Aherne said nobody wants a mast close to them and to have them close to housing estates is "not on."

Director of Services Seán Keating said that the current guidelines from the Department of the Environment said masts could only be located in villages, towns or near school as a last resort. There are some cases where masts can be located near schools, however, he added.

This is written into the current County Development Plan, but there are discussions taking place about reviewing those guidelines, Mr. Keating said.

He told the meeting that another issue is that many types of developments related to masts and new antennae are exempt from planning and any changes to the County Development Plan would make no difference to them.

Cllr McGrath said other councils had put wording like his suggestion into their plans.

Cllr Liam Aherne pointed out that the masts that are exempt from planning must give the Council written notice four weeks before the mast is erected.

County Manager, Ned O'Connor, said he could understand the motion, but in reality if the councillors are to achieve what they want the only way to is to change the national policy.

He said there were two reasons he suggested that, firstly because if they review their development plan the Department of the Environment will have to be informed and they will not approve a change that is contrary to Department guidelines.

Secondly, he said, if the development plan is changed and planning applications are affect people could go to An B"rd Pleanála who would refer to the national guidelines, not the county plan.

Council Chairman, Derry Foley, proposed that the change in guidelines be put to the department, and when they are changed the development plan can be altered. "We don't have the power to change it here," he said.

"We all want to protect people. Step one should be taken before step two," Cllr Ambrose said, supporting the chairman.

Cllr McGrath agreed to defer his motion for one month to do this.

10 November 2005

By Jolene Hill

Bromley Newsshopper,
London 17.11.05

PHONE mast campaigners say they are stunned the council has invested more than £6m in Vodafone.

Figures released to News Shopper under the Freedom of Information Act show £6.2m has been spent on more than four million shares in the firm.

The cash comes from the council's pension fund and is part of almost £100m of investments the council has made.

The pension fund is made up of contributions from the council's general budget, which in turn comes from council tax and government grants.

Campaigners from Orpington Residents Against Masts say the investment is a conflict of interest.

It argues if the council was to give a Vodafone mast planning permission, it could be suggested it was not acting independently as it has an interest in the firm.

The group, which has 70 members and was founded in February, threatened to seek a judicial review if the council refused to change its decision to allow a new mast at the BT telephone exchange site in Chislehurst Road.

The council did refuse and members are now considering what action to take.

Campaigner James Malone, of Chislehurst Road , Orpington, says although the council has not legally done anything wrong it does not look right.

He said: "This investment is in line with the council's cynical attitude towards mobile phone masts."

Fellow member Susan Green, of New Road, Orpington, says it is undemocratic the public does not have access to information on where public money is invested.

She said: "It absolutely stinks they have got a financial interest in this company."

Vodafone, which has more than 165 million customers worldwide, tops a list of more than 100 companies Bromley Council has invested in for its pension fund.

A council spokesman said: "Acting on legal advice, the council has a primary responsibility to secure the best investment returns on behalf of council tax payers."

The spokesman says investment managers seek to encourage good social, environmental and ethical practice in the companies' activities, details of which can be found in its published Statement of Investment Principles.

--------

It seems to me that the Council in Bromley have breached the Code of Conduct, but I'm not quite sure.

How can they represent the residents by following their wishes not to have a mast erected near them if they have a financial interest? Or are they not going to represent their constituents in this matter at all?

Regards

Gill Lyden

Retford Today

A PLAN to build a 65ft phone mast on industrial land in Beckingham has been halted, despite Bassetlaw Council giving it the green light.

Councillors on the planning committee voted 10 in favour and seven against the 3G mast planned at Difuria Ltd on Wood Lane at a meeting last Wednesday night. The proposal received 96 letters of objection and a 113 signature petition against it. But on Monday the head of Difuria, Tony Difuria, sent a letter to Beckingham cum Saundby Parish Council. It said: "We can confirm we will cancel the construction of the mast on our land." "We as a family did not know it was such a controversial issue in the village." "We had no involvement in the planning or siting of this and we are all Beckingham residents."

The move comes after a group of residents went to see Mr Difuria on Friday morning after the planning permission was granted by the council. "Mr Difuria was very approachable when we went to see him," said Penny Weightman. "Our original protest was not about there being a mast, but where it was going to be."

Bassetlaw Council's decision to grant permission had sparked outrage among villagers and councillors. Beckingham resident Coun Ken Bullivant, who sits on Bassetlaw Council, but not the planning committee, as well as Notts County Council hit out at the initial decision. "It was a real shame that they gave the go ahead for this." "There are so many other sites in the village that could have been used instead." But he also welcomed the news that the mast was no longer going to be on that site. "That is all that we wanted – there was never any issues about there being a mast in the village, but we didn't want it at that location." "I thought we put up a good fight during the meeting and thought that we had won our case, so was surprised that permission was granted for it."

On Monday Mr Difuria confirmed he was no longer allowing the mast to be built on his land. "We didn't realise people were so unhappy with this – we hadn't heard anything about it."

END

17 November 2005

Tamworth Herald

10:30 - 17 November 2005

'ANXIOUS' campaigners deeply concerned about the effects of phone masts were relieved to see three more refused last week.

Ellie Piovesana
News Reporter

In front of a packed audience, members of the council's planning committee stood their ground against O2, branding masts 'monstrosities' and blasting Vodaphone for wanting one just 16 metres from one man's home.

"It was a resounding victory," said 'jubilant' campaigner Chris Aston.

"We took on a giant and came out smiling."

On Wednesday, November 9, councillors threw out two applications for O2 masts in Amington Fields and land off Marlborough Way for being too close to homes.

A third application for a 10 metre Vodaphone mast in Gillway Lane met the same fate when resident Barry Hunt said it would be just 16 metres from his teenage daughter's bedroom.

"We are anxious, stressed and fearful of the future," he said.

All three masts were refused by every member of the committee who stood by their agreed policy of putting masts at least 100 metres from homes.

Speaking at the meeting, Glascote ward councillor Chris Cooke, said: " Tamworth 's policy of 100 metres is inadequate - but at least it's something!"

Cllr Cooke echoed health fears and questioned Vodaphone's consultation methods, saying: "I don't feel sending a letter to councillors alone adequately deals with the company's duty to consult the public."

Mr Aston, of Kirtley, Glascote Heath, led a campaign with neighbour Richard Heath.

Both men highlighted deep-rooted fears a mast near their homes could be detrimental to health, children walking to school and the potential Olympic hopefuls using Glascote Stadium.

O2 and Vodaphone are expected to appeal against the decision, something Mr Aston is more than ready for.

"We'll be ready and we'll come out fighting again," he added. "I wonder if the O2 managing director would want one of these by his swimming pool."

We have had a query from a lawyer wanting to make a training video of the issues involved in mast planning. She wants a physical example of a mast disguised as a tree!! Preferably in London.

Does anyone know of one?

Are there any other examples of disguised masts and locations, such as on lampposts?

I have only ever seen the conventional masts.

Thanks.

Sarah P

--------

Sarah P.

"My" mast was disguised as a "FAT FLAGPOLE" with a rag on top. I include a photo and a drawing.

http://www.omega-news.info/57_london_road.jpg
http://www.omega-news.info/3g_beam_on_house_28_meters_from_mast.JPG

The mast is stationed on the roof of "The Little Sauce Factory" pub 55 London Road, Worcester, Worcestershire, WR5 2DJ, in a hill, at a lower level than surrounding houses.

There is also a mast on one of Worcester´s golf course dolled up as a Fir-tree.

I have just received a photo from France of masts dolled up as trees. If you want a photo of the French "trees" let me know and I will mail it.

Regards.

Agnes
E-mail: a.ingvarsdottir@btconnect.com
http://www.mast-victims.org

nlnews@archant.co.uk

Caron Brooks (left) and supporters at their phone masts protest PROTEST groups against mobile masts in Muswell Hill received a massive boost when Haringey Council pledged to pressure the Government over the worries faced by residents.

The council is one of a small clutch in the country to take the plight of neighbourhoods plagued by mobile phone masts, to Westminster.

The issue was raised at a meeting of the full council on Monday night as a delegation of Muswell Hill residents protested on the steps of Haringey Civic Centre in Wood Green.

The demonstrators were opposing masts being erected close to their homes.

Campaigner Caron Brooks, who lives near Barrington Court, Colney Hatch Lane - which has a number of antennae on its roof - said: "It has never happened before. We have never managed to get anything like this."

Councillor Wayne Hoban (Liberal Democrat), of Alexandra Ward, urged the council to reject plans for mobile phone masts on the "precautionary principle" of possible health risks linked to the equipment.

This element of Councillor Hoban's motion was rejected in the council chamber, but his calls for pressure being put on the Government received cross-party support.

Ms Brooks added: "We would have liked to see the precautionary principle included - we want all masts and antennae removed from residential areas."

Mother-of-two, Hannah Berryman, who lives in Grand Avenue. Muswell Hill, close to a Vodafone mast, said: "We do not want our kids to have to be the guinea pigs. Children cannot decide whether they are near a mast in their school."

Her three-year-old was at Church Crescent pre-school, Muswell Hill, which had a mast sited nearby.

Councillor Hoban said after the meeting that he was "very disappointed" with the amendment because "the jury is still out regarding health concerns". But he welcomed the council's decision to set up a scrutiny review committee on mobile phone masts.

Councillor Gideon Bull (Labour, White Hart Lane), who is chairing the scrutiny review said: "I agree with all the concerns he [Councillor Hoban] has raised."

He added: "We need to be given more power to turn down mobile phone applications when they threaten our residents."

Councillor Harry Lister (Labour), executive member for enterprise and regeneration, said: "What we need to do together is to concentrate on the third part of this motion: to be part of a campaign that the government will take notice of and to do that in a way that will build up pressure not just from this authority but from every authority in London."

Councillors across the chamber agreed that the issue should not be turned into a "political football".

http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/content/haringey/hornseyjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=HCEJOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshcej&itemid=WeED17%20Nov%202005%2012%3A09%3A23%3A237

--------

Phone mast victory

By Kate Southern
this is Local London
25.11.05

Residents are celebrating last week's unanimous decision by councillors to reject an application to erect a phone mast in Grange Park.

A demonstration this month by 250 residents, supported by Enfield Southgate MP David Burrowes, opposed proposals by phone company Orange to site the mast in Cranleigh Gardens.

Following a recommendation by Enfield Council's planning officer to approve the application, the Grange Park residents took their fight to the planning committee meeting last Tuesday.

A restrained protest was held outside the Civic Centre before around 70 people observed councillors debate the proposal.

Authorities are not obliged under Government guidelines to take health concerns into consideration as long as emissions from proposed masts meet international guidelines.

Residents enjoyed strong support in the Civic Centre with Cllr Terry Neville, Cllr Pamela Adams and Cllr Martin Prescott objecting to the mast on environmental grounds.

Orange declined to send a representative to the meeting leaving the floor free for Grange Park resident Anthony Fogg to speak for five minutes on the protestors' behalf.

Councillors voted unanimously to reject the application.

A council spokeswoman said: "The reason for turning down this application is that the siting of the proposed mast would not only add to the existing street furniture clutter, but would also be detrimental to the visual look of the locality."

David Law, chairman of Grange Park Mast Action 05, said: "We are absolutely delighted with the result. The fact there was a unanimous vote in our favour is a clear vindication of the justness of our cause.

"We are aware that the case could go to appeal, but with such a resounding victory, the spirit and will of the community is now stronger than ever."

By Neil Elkes
Birmingham mail
Nov 16 2005

FAMILIES battling plans for a mobile phone mast next to a city park are to be told how to shield themselves from its emissions.

More than 1,000 families living near the proposed site of a Vodafone mast, in Eachelhurst Road , Erdington, have been invited to a meeting next week.

Campaigners who believe that radiation from masts can trigger a range of health problems including cancers will outline ways homeowners can protect their families.

Although they claim a link between masts and ill health, the telecom industry and official Government backed investigations say there is no evidence of this.

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

The meeting, to be chaired by Labour Party campaigner Dr Rob Pocock, is at St Mary's Church Hall, Tyburn Road, at 7pm next Wednesday.

The Eachelhurst Mast Action Group will also call on people to support their opposition to the mast being site next to the picturesque Pype Hayes Park .

Group spokeswoman Maria Duffy said they had raised several issues with the council planning department and hope for a reply before the meeting.

She said: "We are enquiring about the legality or otherwise of placement of mobile phone masts on the highway in breach of the, then, citywide moratorium of masts on council owned land."

She added that residents will also be told how to get legal letters to put Vodafone and the council on notice that they will be held liable for any future health problems attributed to the mast.

"We will also talk about how residents can obtain the materials necessary to protect their homes and their families."

The meeting follows talks between Vodafone and the action group at which the company said that they had found no available alternative site to fill a gap in the network.

The council's planning committee is expected to consider the mast application in the next few weeks.

Wirral Globe 16.11.05

MOBILE giant Orange has bluntly refused to remove one of its masts from inside a church tower - sparking a furious war of words with protestors.

Local residents and councillors are adamant that the firm failed to properly consult over their plan to site the controversial mast inside the tower of Manor Church Centre in Manor Road , Wallasey.

More than 70 residents attended a public debate at Wallasey Town Hall three weeks ago to protest about the mast.

They are particularly angry because a playgroup is held within the church centre and a school is nearby.

But Orange - which is paying the church £6,000 a year - is refusing to budge.

In a letter to Liscard Labour councillor Christine Jones, Orange council relations officer Tom Powell said: "As you are aware, Orange has entered into a binding legal agreement with the Church to site equipment within its tower.

"Unfortunately, this is a long-term agreement which cannot be terminated at this late stage. I am sorry that this is not the outcome that you or the local residents would have liked but there is nothing more that I can do in this instance."

Mr Powell said he was aware that "some of the local residents" were unhappy about the consultation exercise but added that the situation "would have easily been avoided if the local ward councillors at the time had responded to our consultation letters".

Cllr Jones responded with a strongly worded letter insisting that the councillors at the time - in February, 2003 - all say they were not consulted about the mast.

And she warned that she and her councillor colleagues along with local residents would not back down until the mast was removed.

She wrote: "What moral right have you to force the people of this locality to live within the beam of your transmitter if they know the risks and do not want it?"

And she added: "You have rented the church tower. But you do not own the space in which my constituents live.

"This is not going to be one of the meek protests to which you may be accustomed. I know my constituents well enough to understand that they will not stop protesting until they can be sanguine that their living space, and their children's living space, is cleared of the perceived hazard they believe you are inflicting on them.

"Is Orange so haughty a corporation that it can close its eyes to the misery it is inflicting on this parish?

"You have what you describe as a 'binding legal agreement' with the church. It is only 'binding' if you refuse to release the church from it."

Cllr Jones told the Globe: "Residents view Orange to have virtually declared war on their locality.

"This fight is far from over, and if Orange think that this is the end of it they have another think coming."

Here's a copy of my email to Mr. Vousden at Downs School, Brighton. I sent it to BECTA as well.

Dear Mr. Vousden,

Apologies for not explaining why I sent this email to you. I wrote in support of Mr. Graham Parfitt, but had not realised it was in relation to WLAN and not masts.

In relation to WLAN, my fears are the same. I have recently been reading 'The Zapping of America' by Paul Brodeur. He tells of the cover-up of the effects of microwaves and Electromagnetic freqency emissions from the protective devices put up by the Dept. of Defense in America and the probability of genetic damage to human beings. A similar situation exists in our own country, with government ignoring the incontrovertible proof and evidence dating from as long ago as the 1930s.

My own experience of damage from computers, is that a year ago I opted for extra lessons, spending 4 hours per week at class as well as the time I spend at home. Since then my eyes have been increasingly sore, bloodshot and sight blurred and I have been diagnosed with Seborrheoic Dermatitis - itching, dry, spotty facial skin which is getting worse. I think I sent you the document re: the damaging of mast cells in the skin from microwaves emanating from Computers? In case I did not, I will try to find it and attach it to this email, otherwise I will post it to you.

I agree with Mr. Parfitt that it would not be a good idea to inflict too long a period of computer studies upon young children

Very sincerely,

Gillian Lyden

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/effects_of_emr_frequency_emissions_from_masts.htm
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/agnes_malvern_no_2.html
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/cherry_brief.doc
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/chromosomal_damage.html
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/patricia_hewitt.doc

--------

WLANs in schools
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1145992/