Tamworth Herald

10:30 - 25 August 2005

Town planners have refused another application for a phone mast on Marlborough Way because it would be too close to homes.

The decision was made at a planning meeting last week where a separate application for a 25-metre mast at a substation in Wilnecote was deferred for further research.

A report released ahead of the meeting indicated that planning officers would be recommending the mast on Stonydelph Lane for refusal on the grounds T Mobile had not considered other sites or justified the need for a mast in that area.

However, fresh information emerged just before the meeting, prompting officers to take another look at the plans.

But it was bad news for Vodaphone - the latest telecommunications firm to apply for permission to erect a mast on Marlborough Way.

Phone giants are all vying for the same spot to close a gap in coverage, but councillors continue to agree with residents who fear the site is too close to homes and will be detrimental to the street scene.

A decision on the T Mobile application should be made at the next committee meeting.

Wilnecote residents have compiled a 78-signature petition strongly opposing the 25-metre mast, which would be close to the Happy Tots Nursery.

Derbyshire Evening Telegraph
BY KAREN HOLT

09:30 - 26 August 2005

Residents say that they are furious about plans to put up a second mobile phone mast close to their homes.

Alvaston residents are fighting plans by mobile phone company O2 to install a 15-metre-high mast and two equipment cabins at the junction of Holbrook Road and Boscastle Road.

The application, which has been submitted to Derby City Council, comes days after T-Mobile put up a 12.2-metre mast and three cabins just metres away, in Holbrook Road at its junction with Holt Avenue.

Nicole Berrisford (43), of Holt Avenue, fears that the masts will pose a health risk, as well as being visually intrusive, which will eventually lead to a devaluation of properties in the area.

Along with her neighbours, she also thinks that the area is becoming far too cluttered with too much street furniture.

She said: "I'm going to do a flyer informing people about O2. I'm trying to call a meeting, organise a petition and, if necessary, a rally.

"I think it's getting beyond a joke now.

"Our main concern is that it's directly on a route to Oakwood Infant and Junior schools and Noel-Baker Community School.

"There could be health risks and it will devalue the houses. No-one wants to buy a house near a phone mast and there'll be two here."

Frank Berridge (53), of Holbrook Road, says that the area is already blighted by graffiti and feels that the new addition will only worsen the problem.

He said: "These masts are near old people's homes and on a main school route.

"For old people, if they can't see very well, they're also going to be more obstacles for them."

Pamela Robinson (60), also of Holbrook Road, said: "It's getting really cluttered. Everything's here and it's just awful.

"They'll get daubed by graffiti and it'll make the street look ugly. There's just too much clutter."

A council spokeswoman said that the application did not require planning permission but the company was required to inform the council, which then has 56 days to agree to its siting and design.

The Harlow Citizen

CONCERNED teachers, parents and children were out in force on Monday to demonstrate against a mobile phone mast set to go up in a field near their school.

Almost 200 people gathered at Manuden Primary School to hold banners and sign petitions in protest at the Orange phone mast planned for nearby Bantfield Bury Farm land.

And while residents admit that phone coverage in the village is poor, many are worried that siting the mast so close to the village could have serious repercussions.

Headteacher Linda Talbot said: "We don't know exactly what the health implications are but certainly children under 11 are said to be most vulnerable.

"There has not been enough research done to prove the safety of these masts and evidence is not yet conclusive. It would be best to leave them down until more is known.

"Not only that, they want to put a 20-metre mast in what is a really pretty piece of land. In the planning it says it will be covered from sight by the trees, but these are deciduous trees so in winter it will be clearly visible."

Mrs Talbot added: "They say the site will be 0.7 kilometres from the school, but we have worked it out on the map to be about 360 metres.

"We know these masts are necessary but there's so much land around Manuden that surely they could find a safer location well away from residents and the school."

The phone company's planning application which includes six antennae and four dishes is set to go before Uttlesford Council on Wednesday, September 21.

The school will hold more demonstrations before that.

Orange admitted that the mast was only 350m from the school but maintained it adhered strictly to all guidelines, and in most cases superseded them.

The company added that many schools in the UK hosted masts and there had been no evidence to suggest this had any adverse effects.

Omega the guidelines are obsolete see under:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

An Orange spokesman said: "No substantiated evidence exists to date linking exposure to radio frequency emissions from mobile phone technology with adverse human health effects, despite significant global investment into this type of research.

"The conclusion reached by many of the organisations that regulate us is that the balance of evidence does not indicate a threat to human health from base station emissions."

The spokesman added that the Stewart Report, which advised the industry on siting and best practice, did not state that masts should be away from schools and residential areas, as there was no scientific basis for it.

Omega this is not true, substantiated evidence exists. 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

Orange said that for best coverage the mast had to be on high ground.

"We could potentially locate this on the opposite side of the village, but it would be closer to homes and would still be visible on the skyline," said the spokesman.

"The benefit of this location is that there is a cluster of trees that would at least provide a backdrop from a visual perspective."

10:41am 26.08.05

The Northern Scot

MOBILE phone giant Vodafone has been accused of riding roughshod over local democracy by residents in Cullen.

They are angry that Vodafone has appealed against refusal by Moray Council to site a 14.7 metre mast in a residential area.

Councillors rejected the planning application earlier this year, voting 17-7 against the proposal, in support of residents who had submitted a 265 signature petition and dozens of letters of objection.

The appeal will now be heard by a Scottish Executive Reporter and local residents will only be able to make their feelings known through written submissions.

They are concerned that the Reporter will overturn the decision of the council and they will be left with a mast they don't want.

Eight-month pregnant Vivienne Addison is concerned at the possible health risks associated with mobile phone masts. She said:

"This is very stressful. I should be enjoying myself and looking forward to the baby but I am waking up at all hours worrying about this."

Vo dafone want to erect the mast on the site of the telephone exchange in Blantyre Street.

The mast would overlook a family home on one side and be adjacent to an old folks home on the other.

Mrs Addison, whose home in Reidhaven Street is just round the corner from the mast site, added:

"Everyone is up in arms and there is a lot of concern about this.

"It will be really ugly and an eyesore. The appeal has come as quite a shock."

Mrs Addison said Orange already has a mobile phone mast at Crannoch Woods and questioned why Vodafone could not use that site.

Another resident, Bernard Watts, of Seafield Place, has written to the Reporter urging he/she rejects the appeal.

"There are a lot of families with children and babies living within a stone's throw of the appeal site, " he said.

"They have expressed great concern about their children's health and wellbeing."

Communities across the UK have expressed fears over possible ill-health risks associated to mobile phone masts.

Mr Watts claimed instances of dizziness, fatigue, chronic headaches, irregular heart beats, nausea and more serious diseases had been reported in communities with masts.

In its appeal to the Scottish Executive, Crown Castle UK, which is looking to develop the site for Vodafone, said: "In so far as some limited harm may be perceived, this is outweighed by the specific encouragement given to modern communications at national and local level."

Mr Watts described the Vodafone's decision to appeal as "absolutely disgraceful" and represented the "erosion of local democracy."

"Cullen is a very pretty conservation seaside village and a mast sited in the grounds of the appeal site will not help. The people of Cullen definitely do not want this unconscionable, execrable edifice in their midst."

Mr Watts said the mast should be sited in a more sensible location away from the residential area of the village.

Local councillor Ron Shepherd said: "I am very disappointed that Vodafone have decided to appeal the council's decision.

"We have put a lot of work into stopping this being erected in a residential area in Cullen where there is a nursing home and doctors' surgery.

"I feel for the people living in that area. I would hope the Reporter backs local opinion and we are depending on him to take heed of the people of Cullen."

A Vodafone spokeswoman said: "We never take the decision to appeal lightly and we always look very carefully at what has been said to us in the original refusal.

"We try to weigh up everybody's views but at the end of the day we have an obligation to provide a service and if we feel we have done our absolute best in determining the site and there is a clear need for the services locally, we would reserve our right to appeal against the decision."

26/08/2005

Farnham Today

LOCAL residents have blasted mobile telephone operator Orange for its lack of public consultation over the proposed sitings of masts in Farnham. Proposed mast sitings by Orange near Bourne Infant School, Waverley Lane and in Manor Gardens have angered residents who have ferociously campaigned against them. After attempting to liaise with Orange over many months, the Manor Gardens’ Action Group has appealed to officials from the mobile telephone operator to make public their plans for mast sitings in Farnham. In a letter to Orange, co-ordinators Ray Cuckow and Simon Hall said: “We know that some people, and indeed some organisations, appear to be against all phone masts. That is not our position and we have stated so publicly. “We believe that masts must be sited safely, and be sited in a sensitive way environmentally - your Manor Gardens mast proposal meets neither criteria. On June 5, we offered in writing to meet Orange locally in a small private meeting to find a mutually acceptable way forward. That offer was totally ignored and not even acknowledged. “We understand that you are handling the Manor Gardens mast nationally so we therefore invite you to join our group for that small private meeting.” In a survey conducted by the Manor Garden Action Group, 96 per cent of local residents said that they preferred a single mast on higher ground rather than multiple masts sited among houses and schools. Local residents also criticised Orange for their planning consultation procedures with 91 per cent saying it has been disastrous for the mobile telephone operator. Finally, 89 per cent of residents said that they would actively avoid using Orange’s technology in comparison to their competitors after the continuing mast sitings fiasco in Farnham.

Sutton Observer

10:30 - 26 August 2005

Regarding last week's letter headed: 'Do All Mast Protestors use Mobile Phones?'

No, I am one of many people who do not use a mobile phone and never will. Nor do I use a microwave oven or DECT cordless phone because I know that microwave radiation is not healthy for me to be near.

I find the argument that, if you use a mobile phone you should accept masts, to be illogical.

There is now so much evidence of health risks from both masts and mobile phones, that I think the question should be 'Why isn't there a safe mobile technology being brought in to replace the current risky microwave mobile technology?'

Why does J G of Boldmere not want to have technology that is safe as well as useful?

For example, we all want a safe water supply in our homes.

In the not-too-distant past, lead pipes were used before the health risks of lead poisoning were recognised.

An alternative had to be found to lead and copper pipes are its excellent replacement.

There are many people living near masts which they know have made them ill; they know this because when they are away from home in mast-free areas, they feel much better.

Why should their health and homes be degraded by masts?

Jane Lee

Shropshire Star

A new mobile phone mast for communications giant Vodafone is set to be built in Telford despite petitions and letters of objection from angry protesters.

Vodafone had applied for planning permission to erect an 11.5m mast at the junction of Marshbrook Way and Donnington Wood Way at Muxton.

Councillors at a meeting of Telford & Wrekin plans board last night gave it prior approval by just five votes to four.

Muxton ward councillor, Viv Verster, spoke at the meeting to voice residents' objections to the plans.

She said: "Thirty years ago everyone smoked, and now we know the risks."

However, in a report that went before councillors, government planning guidance was quoted that does not allow local authorities to refuse mobile phone masts on health grounds.

Derbyshire Evening Telegraph
BY PAULA FENTIMAN

09:30 - 24 August 2005

Governors at a Normanton school could take action over mobile phone masts which have been installed nearby.

The issue has been brought to people's attention after Derby City Council granted permission for mobile phone provider O2 to put up a 7.5m tower with three antennae on the roof of New Normanton Mills, in Stanhope Street, on July 29.

The two-storey building, which contains factories, already has two towers and three antennae for telecoms equipment.

Campaigners say that new guidelines concerning notification of schools should have been taken into account before the latest decision was made.

But the planning department said it did notify the correct people, sending out 108 letters to residential properties within 90m and schools within 200m.

These included Hardwick Primary School, in Hastings Street, which the council said was sent a letter on July 5.

But parents were not informed of the plans because the school's head teacher and governing body say they never received the letter.

Head teacher Sushma Sehmbi said: "I wasn't aware of it. Had we known we would have informed our parents. Stanhope Street is very close to the school.

"If masts are close to the school and they are a risk then it does concern us.

"When we go back to school after the summer holiday we will take up the issue with the governors. They could consider whether they want to take it up with the council.

"We will let the parents know by writing to them."

School governor Andrea Luscombe (38), who has a nine-year-old son, Lee Russell, at the school, said: "It's quite concerning that the mast is so close to the school, when there could be health risks.

"I didn't even know there were any masts there."

Ms Luscombe, of St James' Road, said the issue of mobile phone masts would be considered by the governors.

Dorothy Skrytek, of Crewe Street, said that under the latest information from the Stewart Report on mobile phone and health produced by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, school governors should be consulted on proposals for masts near schools.

"As far as I know there was no consultation. I sent out leaflets through people's doors letting them know, but the council had already granted permission."

An O2 spokesman added: "All of O2's mobile phone masts operate well within international safety guidelines."

Omega this statement is plain and simple not true. See further under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

The Citizen, Gloucestershire

Be the first reader to comment on this story

10:30 - 24 August 2005

A Planning inspector has overturned Stroud District Council's decision to oppose permission for a mobile phone mast at Thrupp.

Members of the public had applauded councillors when they rejected Vodafone's application for a 12-metre device in London Road on health and visual intrusion grounds. But five months on, an inspector has decided in favour of the mobile phone company's proposal.

Last year almost 40 householders logged protest letters with the council about the mast.

Mother Lynn Cain said people were really worried about the health implications of the radiation from the mast.

She was especially concerned because it was near Stroud General Hospital.

However, Inspector Ken Barton said Vodafone's pole and cabinets would be screened by trees and would be "integrated into the locality to some extent".

"Public views and vantage points are limited and people are only likely to get a fleeting view of it," said Mr Barton.

"It would have an insignificant impact on the character and appearance of the area."

On the issue of health, the inspector said he noted the "strong local feeling", particularly about the school 400 metres away and two homes 100 metres from the pole. But the proposal had been designed to comply with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

"PPG8 indicates that in these circumstances it should not be necessary to further consider the health aspects and concerns about them," he said.

The inspector's decision has been condemned by Green Party councillors as "undemocratic".

They said the mast and two equipment cabins would "blight" the London Road approach to Stroud.

"There has been enormous local opposition from Thrupp residents to this phone mast - no wonder people get disenchanted with democracy when the decision of local councillors and the opinions of local people are overridden by an unelected bureaucrat," said Coun Martin Whiteside.

"It seems that this Government and the Planning Inspectorate are only interested in the profits of big business, not the opinions of local people".

On behalf of Vodafone, Jane Frapwell said the company planned to keep visual intrusion from the mast to a minimum.

"We are well aware that this is a conservation area and our obligations to make sure we reduce and visual impact and to provide a service locally," she said.

"This installation is a roadside slim pole which is designed to blend in with existing street furniture.

"In terms of health we recognise that some people do have concerns but we take our lead from expert international bodies such as the World Health Organisation which has said that within the guideline levels there is no evidence of any adverse health effect from radio base stations.

Omega this statement is plain and simple not true. See further under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

"They are very low powered and provide a very local service."

David Corker, from Stroud District Council, said the authority would not incur any costs from the planning appeal because it was dealt with through written representations.

--------

Thanks to whoever posted this...

I have replied to the newspaper in Stoud with the following:

I would like to let the good people of Stroud know that they are not alone! This sad state of affairs is happening all over the UK and has indeed two weeks ago happened at Marlborough in Wiltshire. Marlborough is very similar to Stroud, both are delightful little old English rural market towns, full of historic and listed buildings set in beautiful surroundings and within or around conservation areas and ANOB’s. Like the people of Stroud, the residents of Marlborough would like to keep it that way. But no, the telecommunications giants are walking all over the UK, crushing us underfoot and changing the very nature and traditions of all that we hold dear.

Below are a few thoughts to encourage Stroud to fight on; why should we have all this equipment and environmental pollution imposed upon us against our wishes, putting the needs of the operator before our own? In our case the real culprit is BT who want to put these masts on their exchange roof against the wishes of their customers who live around it. At the end of the day, we are all the customers of these phone companies and they would do well to remember the power that we have - if only it were coordinated effectively…

We too feel the despair that Stroud must be feeling right now. We have thanked the regulatory committee for everything that they have done to support the people of Marlborough during the last three years. We have been constantly supported by our Town Councilors and by the Regulatory Planning Committee and are very grateful that they rejected permission, even though loosing an appeal will cost Kennet financially. I am sure that they are as dismayed by the decision as we are. We have written to ask them if the planning authority is prepared to challenge this decision in the High Court on behalf of those in Marlborough, on the grounds that this decision wasn't right, backing up their previous stance on the matter. We do not have the funds to take this to the High Court ourselves and so the bullying telecommunication company tactics win.

Naturally, I along with many of the residents living here, are devastated that this development can now proceed in our midst. Many firmly believe that the radiation from these structures is likely to cause health problems and illnesses in the future and simply do not agree with the comments made by the Inspector in the appeal decision and we have written to tell them so. There is much evidence being published regularly by various bodies but this Government chooses to ignore such findings.

Neither are many local residents in agreement with the views made by the Inspector - that in his opinion - the visual impact will be of an acceptable level and would not have a detrimental impact on the settings of listed buildings. We clearly will be subjected to these eyesores everyday. We asked whether the Planning Committee agrees with the inspector that this development will comply with Policies HH5, HH8, NR8, PPS7 and PPG8?

Despite numerous concerns raised by local residents in their objection letters only the two points seem to have been addressed: visual impact and health risks. No reference is made to concerns such as vehicular access and increased traffic to the site, economic impacts such as devalued property and the impact on local schools and impact of those families moving away are ignored. Neither is the issue of setting a precedent for all future telecommunication equipment in this location and that impact on Policy NR8 given any consideration.

Given that Kennet District Council has an obligation to protect the environment on our behalf, we have strongly urged that this decision should be challenged by the Council in order to comply with Article 130r of the European Treaties Act, which actively requires the protection of the environment, following a precautionary approach, preventing any type of environmental pollution at source. Kennet has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for those with disabilities and that includes the 15 - 25% of the population known to suffer with chemical and/or electromagnetic sensitivities who can experience debilitating reactions from exposure to extremely low levels of common chemicals such as pesticides, cleaning products, fragrances, and remodeling activities, and from electromagnetic fields emitted by computers, cell phones, and other electrical equipment. At present we have a choice about whether to use such products and devices in our homes but we will have no choice about the microwave irradiation about to be unleashed over us 24/7/365.

Outside and industrial noise pollution is another responsibility that Kennet has to protect us from under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Soon, many may well be troubled by low frequency noise or hum and no doubt be contacting the environmental health department at Kennet for help in order to simply sleep at night. The inspector states that noise levels generated by equipment must not exceed 10db(A) above the background noise level when measured at the boundary of adjoining properties (which means that to comply fully, the generated noise level would need to fluctuate with the background noise level). But, when is background noise to be measured? At night it is very quiet, in daytime the lorries can be extremely loud. If it were measured above this level, then the noise from equipment could be very loud at night, much above 10db(A) allowed by the inspector. The inspector’s decision could be challenged on these grounds alone as it is not quantifiable and is open to abuse by the equipment operators.

So much research is now available to support evidence of potential health issues that I believe it is irresponsible to allow this development to proceed. Everyone has been warned of potential risks, from tumors to cataracts and the decreased nighttime production of Nocturnal Melatonin and to ignore such advice brings the prospect of legal proceedings against Operators, Landowners and Planning Authorities ever nearer. The local people have made their views known clearly. The inspector’s decision represents the slow death of democracy and possibly the death of many who live in Marlborough, and, unfortunately, it would seem in Stroud too.

Pete

--------

Thanks, Sandi.... I am very grateful that you take the time to keep us all informed... I totally agree with you about consumer power. I haven't bought a 3g phone but sadly others do. We need to coordinate targeted boycots to become effective. Like Greenpeace did for example over the price of petrol and they encouraged people not to buy certain brands of petrol to send a message. We could sugggest people boycot a particular operator to make them listen. Or we could praise ones like O2 who have just listened to people at Pewsey, Wiltshire. I'll post the article as it may be a way forward for others. I'd like to see all the groups working together with one voice - thanks for the 'Voice of the People of the UK' info - I didn't know about that.

--------

Praise an operator? Not me, Pete! If an operator withdrew it would be for self-interested reasons, not out of consideration for the people. If they did consider the people, masts would not be insensitively sited and our human rights wouldn't be trampled into the dust and clouds of emissions!

Sandi

--------

You're right of couse, Sandi, silly me!!! Whatever was I thinking of? Just read '02 jumps in for the kill'

Pete

--------

Well, I was inclined to try to see the best in situations and people before I met my first TETRA mast, but after my initial "baptism by fire" I became more realistic and realised that there are tiddlers and killer sharks, and puppy dogs and wild dogs!

Sandi

--------

Dear Pete,

I post news articles when I have the time, so that you can all see what it going on in other parts of the country. I also add comments on these articles sometimes to try to inform people. This is the one I posted for Stroud:

As SWCoord and Director of Advisory Services for http://www.mastsanity.org, a voluntary organisation with charity status which offers free advice and support for anyone with mast queries or problems, I can confirm that the feelings of the people of Stoud are mirrored across the UK.

All areas are concerned and indignant about the loss of amenity and the way the wishes of residents are being overridden in the phone masts issue.

It is particularly worrying that these masts are now intruding upon conservation areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty because PPG8 - Planning Policy, Environmental Considerations para 16 clearly states:

"In accordance with PPG7 high priority should be given to the need to safeguard areas of particular environmental importance. In National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty proposals should be sensitively designed and sited and the developer must demonstrate that there are no suitable alternative locations."

That there are health concerns to be consider is abundantly clear from the calls Mast Sanity receives on the advice line (08704 322 377 Mon to fri 1pm to 8pm).

Communities across the UK are unhappy that no meaningful research is being carried out in this country, as it is abroad.

Mast Sanity advises that people should contact their MPs if they are concerned, to ask them to back all calls for planning changes in line with a more sensitive and sensible siting of these masts.

Sandi Lawrence

I am also finding that communites are begining to join forces with other groups in their area to build a more formidable resistance, and to pack more power.

In some areas, six weekly peaceful protests are to be held to raise awareness of the discontent of the people.

Copies of the "Voice of the People of the UK" letter are being distributed for individuals or campaign groups to send to Government departments. A copy can be obtained by email from Redsunset37@aol.com

The other way of making your views known is by not buying 3G phones. If no one bought them, there would be no need for the masts!

Sandi

--------

Thanks, Sandi.... I am very grateful that you take the time to keep us all informed... I totally agree with you about consumer power. I haven't bought a 3g phone but sadly others do. We need to coordinate targeted boycots to become effective. Like Greenpeace did for example over the price of petrol and they encouraged people not to buy certain brands of petrol to send a message. We could sugggest people boycot a particular operator to make them listen. Or we could praise ones like O2 who have just listened to people at Pewsey, Wiltshire. I'll post the article as it may be a way forward for others. I'd like to see all the groups working together with one voice - thanks for the 'Voice of the People of the UK' info - I didn't know about that.

I have printed below a letter which I am sending to BT about the Marlborough BT Telephone Exchange masts.


Regards, Pete.

Naturally, I along with many of the residents living here, are devastated that this development can now proceed in our midst. Many firmly believe that the radiation from these structures is likely to cause health problems and illnesses in the future and simply do not agree with the comment made by the Inspector in point 11 of the appeal decision. There is much evidence being published regularly by various bodies but this Government chooses to ignore such findings.

Neither are many local residents in agreement with the views made by the Inspector in points 6 and 7. In his opinion the visual impact will be of an acceptable level and would not have a detrimental impact on the settings of listed buildings. We clearly will be subjected to these eyesores everyday.

Despite numerous concerns raised by local residents in their objection letters only the above two points seem to have been addressed. No reference is made to concerns such as vehicular access and increased traffic to the site, economic impacts such as devalued property and the impact on local schools and impact of those families moving away are ignored. Neither is the issue of setting a precedent for all future telecommunication equipment in this location and that impact on Policy NR8 given any consideration.

Is BT aware of its responsibility to comply with Article 130r of the European Treaties Act, which actively requires the protection of the environment, following a precautionary approach, preventing any type of environmental pollution at source? Has BT considered those with disabilities who live nearby, including the 15 - 25% of the population known to suffer with chemical and/or electromagnetic sensitivities who can experience debilitating reactions from exposure to extremely low levels of common chemicals such as pesticides, cleaning products, fragrances, and from electromagnetic fields emitted by computers, cell phones, and other electrical equipment. At present we do have a choice about whether to use such products and devices in our homes but we will have no choice about the microwave irradiation about to be unleashed over us 24/7/365.

Outside and industrial Noise pollution is another responsibility that BT has a responsibility to protect us from under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Soon, many may well be troubled by low frequency noise or hum and no doubt be contacting the environmental health department at Kennet for help in order to simply sleep at night. The inspector states that noise levels generated by equipment must not exceed 10db(A) above the background noise level when measured at the boundary of adjoining properties (which means that to comply fully, the generated noise level would need to fluctuate with the background noise level). But, when is background noise to be measured? At night it is very quiet, in daytime the lorries can be extremely loud. If it were measured above this level, then the noise from equipment could be very loud at night, much above 10db(A) allowed by the inspector. The inspector’s decision could be challenged on these grounds alone as it is not quantifiable and is open to abuse by the equipment operators.

So much research is now available to support evidence of potential health issues that I believe it is irresponsible to allow this development to proceed. Everyone has been warned of potential risks, from tumors to cataracts and the decreased night time production of Nocturnal Melatonin and to ignore such advice brings the prospect of legal proceedings against Operators, Landowners, in this case BT and Planning Authorities ever nearer.

One company, BT, is in a position to halt this particular development. But to do so would mean going against BT’s policy as stated below:

‘In November 2000, BT and Crown Castle UK entered into an agreement to provide infrastructure to 3G mobile and wireless operators. This should enable us to receive significant rental income through the development of the roof-space and surroundings of, initially, 4,000 of our exchange buildings. The programme has the potential to be extended to cover all of our operational buildings. Agreements have been signed with three of the 3G licence holders, including BT Wireless, for use of the combined BT and Crown Castle portfolio’.

It appears that the above policy is based purely upon generating revenue and that 4,000 exchanges will be used whatever their location. So much for the - ‘most suitable location for operational needs’ - as so often quoted in planning applications. BT is determined to put masts on its exchanges regardless of the views of neighbouring residents or their concern for their immediate environments.

Interestingly BT are keen to attract customers, remember the ‘Come back to BT adverts? You even have a policy: ‘BT Wireless’strategy is to attract and retain high-value customers and increase revenues per customer by positioning itself as a leader in the European mobile data market’. Well BT, in case it hasn’t dawned on you yet, we are your customers, and the customers of O2 and Hutchinson and all the other mobile phone operators. And, if you don’t treat your customers’ right, you loose them. Yes, we want mobile phone technology, but not at any cost. You would do well to listen to what people are saying in the countless communities that you are bullying up and down the country. Take heed before it is too late. Site phone masts in positions that people find acceptable and consider your neighbours. They have been good neighbours and customers to you over the years and in Marlborough t he local people have made their views known clearly. They do not want the mobile phone masts on the exchange.

BT could reverse its decision in this case and ask the operators to withdraw their application for a mast and suggest they use alternative sites on the edge of Marlborough. They could even move the telephone exchange to a more appropriate purpose built building with transmission facilities on the new industrial site in the town. The existing exchange could be sold off for housing development to provide revenue to fund the project. You could take the lead from the recent case in nearby Pewsey where "Reluctantly O2 have agreed to withdraw their application in order to satisfy community feeling." How much more respect the local community now have for that company and their brave decision than we currently have for BT in Marlborough.

In this case the inspector’s decision represents the slow death of democracy and possibly the death of many who live here. BT may soon find to their cost that ignoring their local neighbours will cost them more financially than the revenue from masts on a roof will ever generate.

Sunderland Echo

PLANS to put up 50ft mobile telephone mast in the grounds of one of Sunderland's biggest landmarks have been rejected.

Communications giant T-Mobile, which employs about 1,000 people at its Doxford Park centre, lodged the idea of a mobile mast in the grounds of Sunderland Minster in June and was ready to pay church authorities rent for using the land, though no fee was agreed.

The company said the mast – that would have been made to look like a flagpole – was necessary for the new 3G technology that allows video conferencing between users. It had mapped the city centre and plumped on the minster’s ground as the best location.

City planners said, however, the mast would be “detrimental” to views around the listed building and its conservation area around the minster.

But Canon Stephen Taylor, of Sunderland Minster, today defended the mast plans. He said: “The minster did not think there was a concern over the visual impact and nobody had ever brought that up so it is something of a surprise, I suppose it could have interrupted views of the hotel.”

T-Mobile wanted to put the mast next to steps leading into the minster’s grounds and the reception aerials and antennas would have been inside. The company believed the mast would also have been screened by trees.

Mr Taylor added: “If we are going to have 3G technology then people need to be near a mast and there will need to be one in the city centre. It will now be be up to T-Mobile to look elsewhere.”

Planning officers in their decision said the company’s plan went against planning guidelines on conservation areas, plus building in parks and next to trees.

One2One at Doxford Park was taken over by T-Mobile and last year it wanted to put a mast up the steeple at St George’s United Reformed Church in Belvedere Road – one of the most prominent landmarks on the city’s skyline.

That was rejected in a consultation exercise with neighbours before any plan was lodged with the city council.

T-Mobile was unavailable for comment.

24 August 2005