Derbyshire Telegraph

09:30 - 01 August 2005

New city council leader Chris Williamson has now adopted the most aggressive stance against mobile phone masts yet seen from within our corridors of power.

The Labour chief says he has instructed the authority's legal department to explore what measures are open to residents to fight planning applications from mobile phone companies.

He wants to show protesting residents "that they have the support of the city council" - a remarkable blanket commitment.

It will raise a few eyebrows because, up and down the land, planning officers have been sadly shaking their heads and saying that regulations leave them powerless to oppose plans for masts which are under 15 metres high.

If that is indeed the law of the land, then Mr Williamson may have to restrict his fight to the higher masts.

And, even then, he can expect to be challenged to name the sites within the city which he would deem acceptable as mast sites.

For, however electorally- damaging that would be, these things have to be put up somewhere if millions of people are to enjoy the benefit of their mobile phones.

Of course, if scientists were able to unequivocally answer the question which has been troubling people for years - do masts pose a health risk? - the issue would become more clear-cut.

If the answer is yes, then it is back to the drawing board and people would just have to find some other means of annoying fellow bus and train passengers and dicing with death behind the steering wheels of their cars.

And if they are given a clean bill of health, we'll just have to accept the phone masts as an unsightly but necessary evil.

Unless, that is, Mr Williamson is prepared to risk the wrath of Derby's phone-users and insist he is going to block all plans for masts...

To bring the controversial nature of mast/phone emissions more firmly into the public eye - we could do with a platform that has the potential of involving the masses.

Brian Haw, the anti-war protestor has held a 24 hour vigil outside Parliament for four years. The new laws to restrict protest will NOT apply to him because he has been there for a long time - and most importantly BEFORE tomorrow - lst August when the laws come into force.

Anyone who starts a continuous demonstration TODAY can lawfully hold their non-stop protest in Parliament Square. This means that someone would always have to be present to hold placards, etc. (If this demo. is done in the name of a group, I presume that people would be able to come and go to provide the necessary "cover"- but that the chosen site must never be devoid of somebody.) The Laws that come into force on Monday, lst August, make it an offence to demonstrate in a designated area if "when the demonstration starts", the police have not given authorisation. (Mr. Haw argued in the High Court that the law did not apply to him because it was not in force when his demonstration started.) The Government was refused permission to appeal. (Page 10, Daily Telegraph, July 30th)

Obviously, because of our Charity status, Mast Sanity's name could not be used - but there just might be one or two reasonable people who would hope to gain some publicity and even expose the bullying nature of the Operators and the indifference of the government to the justifiable health concerns of the general public and would be willing to start the whole thing going.

Naturally, there is concern for Londoners since the bombings, and one's own safety has to be taken into account, so it would be understandable if no-one is keen to go!! I would be there myself, but we live on the South Coast and it's just too difficult right now.

Placards could be made interesting, black balloons could be a possibility - and remember poppies for our fallen service men? Well, what about a flower that could have significance for all those who have become ill as a result of radiation..... Bet others have even better ideas!!! Let's hear them - but remember - tomorrow is too late.

Kind regards, Vivienne B.

Jul 29 2005

By Rob Devey, Chester Chronicle

CAMPAIGNERS incensed by decisions to allow mobile phone masts near family homes have issued a call to arms.

Residents in Westminster Park and Vicars Cross have joined forces to demand a change in the law amid health fears.

They are calling on campaigners throughout Cheshire to join their new group and participate in a series of large-scale protest marches in Chester.

It is hoped the demonstrations will have a domino-effect, spreading nationwide.

The group, yet to be named, met on Wednesday and will also fight individual masts across the county.

Its call to arms comes after Hutchison 3G was granted permission on appeal to erect a mast on Wrexham Road, just 100m north of Ash Grove Farm Nursery.

Chester City Council had refused the scheme.

With their hands tied by the appeal inspector's decision, planners have now allowed a mast near Bunnies Nursery School on land at Chester Rugby Club on Hare Lane.

Livid locals in both areas say enough is enough and are fighting to overturn the decisions.

Chairman of the Westminster Park residents' group and father-of-three Malcolm Harle said: 'The only way to tackle the issue is to change the law so masts have to be, say, 350m from schools, residential areas and hospitals.

'We are trying to organise a demonstration in Chester for all groups throughout the whole of Cheshire.'

This week's meeting was attended by 26 residents, with others on holiday, and sub-committees were formed to co-ordinate the campaign.

The first protest is planned for early September.

Chester MP Christine Russell said she favoured a change in the law whereby local authorities decided on suitable locations for masts.

She said: 'Local authorities already identify sites for things like houses and open spaces so why not phone masts?

'The phone companies would then say how many masts they needed and ask where they could put them.

'If a mast is on Green Belt land to me that's preferable to a site that is upsetting a lot of people.'

Chester City Council planning officer Richard Gore said full planning applications were required for masts taller than 15m.

He said: 'Our criteria is the impact on the residential amenity which is quite subjective.

'Authorities have refused masts because of their proximity to homes before and sometimes it has been upheld.

'But the Government says we cannot refuse permission on health grounds because there is no hard evidence masts are harmful.'

29/07/2005

WAVERLEY Borough Council took a stand against the “relentless march of technology” on Wednesday by throwing out controversial plans for a mobile phone mast in Westland Farm, Shamley Green.

Faced with considerable local opposition and led by chairman, Cllr Richard Worby, (Ewhurst) members of the authority’s area planning sub-committee overturned officers’ recommendations to approve the Orange proposal and instead unanimously rejected it.

Cllr Worby accepted there was probably a case for infill masts where there was a total failure to receive a signal but he pointed out the Westland Farm mast would be for third generation or 3G mobile phone technology, which allows for video communication, music downloads and the like. “I do wonder whether we need to sacrifice the countryside so people can have some very silly toys – they are not necessary,” he said.

“I am dead against allowing this relentless march of technology, much of it pointless, to destroy all we hold dear.”

Orange had rejected claims that it had failed to adequately explore more suitable alternative sites for the mast, insisting it could not go along with suggestions that it could share a mast already approved at Rooks Hill in Bramley.

The phone company claimed that this mast would not link up with two other masts it had been planning in the area.

However, Wednesday’s meeting was told that permission for both of these masts had been turned down so there are no other masts for it to link up with.

Both Bramley and Wonersh Parish Councils are opposed to the Westland Farm mast and the borough council had received 79 letters of objection from local residents.

Bramley resident, Patrick Molyneux, addressed the meeting on behalf of the objectors with a hard-hitting attack on the plan, covering both the adverse environmental impact he argued the mast would have, and the perceived health fears.

“The mast triangulates three schools, over-towers ancient woodland, the Downs Link, Cranleigh Waters, the old Wey & Arun Canal and the east/west path between Bramley and Shamley,” he said.

Mr Molyneux pointed out that there are children (living in the local area) who would fall within the exclusion zone recommended by experts and mandated in both the USA and parts of Europe.

He explained that the mast could also threaten a roosting and feeding site for bats, which are a protected species.

“This is another piecemeal application with no attempt to create a coherent strategy for these parishes or explanation of how this fits within a strategy for the five 3G operators, let alone just Orange,” he concluded.

The lack of an overall mobile phone mast plan for the area is a regular complaint of councillors and was again raised during the debate.

One of the major causes of concern for people living close to mast is the perceived associated health risks associated with radiation emitted from the mast.

Although the Government has said these are non-existent, it does allow councils to refuse mast plans if people have a genuine fear.

Cllr David Inman (Chiddingfold & Dunsfold) told the meeting.
“The main worry with all these masts is are we going to find later on in life that they have damaged children?”

THE chief of mobile phone giant O2 has admitted his firm failed to consult Harlow residents properly over controversial plans to erect a mast near their homes.

Harlow MP Bill Rammell wrote to O2 chief executive Peter Erskine to ask why more people were not told about an application to site a 12.5m (41ft) mast in the grounds of the Territorial Army centre, in Old Harlow.

Residents in Bury Road, St John's Road and Old Road complained to Mr Rammell that neither they, TA centre users nor nearby Harlowbury Primary were properly informed of the application, which was refused by council officers in May.

Mr Rammell has since received a letter from Mr Erskine acknowledging 02's failure to consult was an "oversight" and not in line with the company's standard practices. He also said he has instructed the company to engage in sufficient consultation in the future.

Mr Erskine's comments came as O2 community liaison officer Jim Stevenson confirmed the company is likely to appeal against the planning refusal.

He said an appeal would only be lodged after a meeting with Mr Rammell and other phone companies in September to discuss how to improve the consultation process locally.

Mr Rammell said that although he was satisfied with Mr Erskine's response, the company should keep to its word if the appeal goes ahead.

"I am pleased that O2 have admitted that the consultation they undertook on this mast application was not in accordance with their own procedures," he said.

Paul Brooker, of Bury Road, told the Star that despite Mr Erskine's reassurances, he and other residents were discussing plans to form a group to oppose another application.

"The way they went about it last time was so discreet," he said. "People are not told about it so can't respond - it's how these things are passed through."

Neighbour Kylie Jones added: "Part of our objections were for health reasons. We want to nip this in the bud as soon as we can."

Jul 29 2005

Maidenhead Express

By Lisa De Sousa Royal Borough Reporter

IRATE campaigners have accused the council of wilfully ignoring planning regulations after it approved an application to put up a new mobile phone mast in a residential area.

At a royal borough meeting on July 6, members of the planning committee granted mobile phone giant Vodafone permission to build a 3G mast on the corner of Boyn Hill and Clare Road, in Maidenhead.

But opponents of the mast say the council did not carry out a full consultation with residents first, which it is obliged to do under official Government guidelines.

In a catalogue of complaints, residents claim they were not invited to the July 6 meeting, where the decision was made, and that the planning officer's report ignored their objections. They also claim that when they confronted the planning authority, they were told 'the royal borough had decided not to implement the guidelines'.

The protesters have since enlisted the support of Maidenhead MP Theresa May who has lodged a complaint with the council.

In a written statement, she said: "The manner in which this plan was approved is of deep concern to me... "If true, this is an astonishing state of affairs...These guidelines exist for a reason...to allow schools, colleges and hospitals to have a proper input into the planning process."

Kobus Bensch, of Mast Free Maidenhead, who admitted to owning a mobile phone himself, said he was appalled.

"This one was simply pushed through - even though there were objections from residents," he said. "Every time there's a committee meeting, we either hear about it at the last minute or not at all.

"And even if you get to a meeting, you only have three minutes in which to make your objections. Meanwhile, the panel members can speak for as long as they like, even though it is you who has got to live with their decision."

But the council has strongly denied the claims and said that 'no decision was made not to implement the guidelines on this occasion.'

Spokeswoman Diane Robinson said the standard procedure requires the council to notify everyone who lives within 100 metres of a proposed site, and also to display a public notice - both of which it did.

She said that all eight objections they received were reported to the committee on the night, and considered by members of the panel.

She also said that the council 'only specifically invites objectors' to the meetings, which are open to the public anyway and advertised on the web-site.

Any further complaints can be sent to head of planning David Trigwell.