Kiddermister Shuttle

VICTORIOUS residents are celebrating after persuading councillors to throw out plans for a third mobile phone mast close to their homes.

Several hundred people mounted a forceful campaign against their neighbourhood, around Stourport Road , being turned into a "dumping ground for masts."

This week, the district council's planning development control committee voted against an officer's recommendation for approval and refused the bid by 02 to build a 15m mast behind Charlie Brown's Autos, off Lisle Avenue.

Protest co-ordinator, Anita Gallagher, of Communities Against Mobile Masts, said residents were "overjoyed" by the decision and she thanked all those involved.

More than 100 protest letters, a 635-named petition and postcards with pictures showing how residents felt the area had already been blighted by a Vodafone mast in the same location had been sent to councillors.

Mrs Gallagher, whose home in Hospital Lodge is 130m from the site, said: "We are not a dumping ground for mobile masts."

This is Gwent

PEOPLE power helped convince councillors in Gwent to refuse planning permission for a telephone mast 50 metres from a school playground.

Residents in Thornhill, Cwmbran, had campaigned to stop mobile phone company O2 erecting a 12.5-metre mast near Woodlands Infants and Junior School.

A petition of 300 signatures was handed to Torfaen council and a local resident spoke to the planning committee on behalf of the community. The campaign was backed by ward members Councillors John Cunningham and Mary Barnett, who praised the efforts of local people.

Councillors went against a recommendation by planning chiefs to approve the application, citing its close proximity to the school and potential "health effects", as well as "visual intrusion" as their main reasons. Councillor Cunningham said he was "thrilled" with the decision. "I am glad the committee decided to take the precautionary approach," he added.

Speaking to the committee, Nicky Rees, a resident of Thornhill Close, said the government's Stewart Report in 2000 had urged a "precautionary approach" as far as mobile technology was concerned, particularly with regard to schools.

She added: "There is no proof they can damage people's health - neither is there any proof they are safe."

Omega there is proof they can damage people's health. See under: http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

Mrs Rees said regulations in New Zealand and Australia specified a minimum distance of 300m between masts and schools or houses. Residents also voiced concerns about the effect the mast could have on medical equipment such as pacemakers.

An independent report by an executive agency of the department of health found no interference between phone transmitters and medical equipment.

A spokesman from O2 said in response to the council's decision: "Health and safety issues are of prime importance to us and we are sensitive to public concerns, but there is no evidence linking the use of mobile telephony with adverse health effects. This is one of the most studied areas of science.

Omega there is evidence linking the use of mobile telephony with adverse health effects. See under: http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

"The demand for mobile phone coverage is at its greatest in the areas where people live and work, and inevitably this means from time to time there will be schools nearby.

"It is clear we need to provide the best service for the customer. Without a network of mobile phone masts, mobile phones won't work."

l Last month, campaigners in Talywain, near Pontypool , blocked Vodafone workers from putting up a mast on the grounds.

BY LAURA MATLESS Bath Chronocle

11:00 - 07 July 2005

A controversial plan to site more mobile phone antennae at Bath City Football Club looks set be approved. Campaigners had opposed proposals to erect a new mast at the Twerton Park football ground, but now even more telecommunications equipment could be added.

Mobile phone giant Orange wants to attach three more high-powered aerials and a dish on to floodlights at Twerton Park .

Permission was originally given in 2002 to replace the north west floodlight tower and attach six antennae and four transmission dishes.

But now Bath and North East Somerset Council's Bath South local committee has been recommended to approve the extra equipment when they meet on Tuesday.

Objections to the plan include a 41-name petition, which was signed by nearby residents and parents of children who attend First Steps Centre, which is 100 metres from the tower.

Campaigners say the antennae will be too close to people's homes - including sheltered accommodation - and fear property prices could drop.

There are four mobile phone base stations already at the football ground, according to communications watchdog Ofcom.

Paul Williams, chief executive of the football club, said: "The application has been made by Orange and the type of equipment they use is up to them - all we do is give them a rental space at the ground.

"They had looked at various sites and decided that ours was suitable.

"Mobile phones are a thing of the future - everyone has them so the mast has to go somewhere in order for the reception to be available."

Another nearby resident who complained asked about the potential for the mast to interfere with electronic household items. The resident also asked if there had been enough publicity around the application.

The council officer's report into the application said: "This resident has received a response and confirmation that the publicity of this application is in accordance with statutory requirement and council policy.

--------

Has the football club ever been sent a Mast Sanity landowner letter, reminding them of their legal responsibility should it be proven in the future that these masts have affected the health of those living close by?

Caroline

Bath Chronicle

11:00 - 07 July 2005

Health fears are often raised by worried householders when an application is submitted for a mobile phone mast near their home. But worries about possible effects from radiation are not allowed to be taken into account by council planning officers.

They make the recommendations as to whether planning committee members should permit or turn down each particular application and they have a tight set of guidelines to follow.

Not every mobile phone mast will require planning permission but, if a planned telecommunications mast is in a conservation area, as many in Bath are, or more than 15 metres high, then permission is needed.

If the mast does not fit these criteria, the mobile phone operator still has to apply for prior approval from planning officers at Bath and North East Somerset Council.

When an operator applies for prior approval, the only factors officers can consider are the siting and design of the mast.

It is only when planning permission is required that the officers can look into any other issues.

The planning guidance that is issued to local authorities by the Deputy Prime Minister's Office says: "It is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards.

"It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health."

--------

I get so many callers on the advice line being told by their councils or operators that health cannot be taken into consideration if the mast is under 15 m high (see below). I keep telling them that nothing in the guidelines has changed, only that councils are more wary of taking a health stance after an appeal court decision (Harrogate). But it seems local councils must have been given some kind of new policy guideline, either by the Govt or by operators, otherwise why would they all now be stating that? I expect they've been given a one-sided account of the Harrogate decision, twisted to suit the operators.

Caroline

--------

A totally incorrect appreciation of the planning regulations - yet again!

David Baron

Gloucester news

10:30 - 07 July 2005

Angry residents gathered last night to protest against plans to put a mobile phone mast 100m from a Cheltenham school.

Dozens of campaigners waved placards and called for the plans to be scrapped. The furious reaction was prompted by phone company Hutchison 3G.

It has informed Cheltenham Borough Council it intends to put a 15m mast at the corner of Mead Road and Churchill Road, near Naunton Park Primary School.

The council could be powerless to stop it as aerials that are 15m tall or less do not need planning permission.

Di Gallagher lives opposite the site and has four children ranging in age from 10 to 14.

She said: "I don't think this is an appropriate place. Hutchison don't seem to appreciate that this is primarily a residential area.

"The proximity to the school makes me anxious. I've got children there and the health risks haven't been proved either way.

"It's not a chance I want them to take with my children's health."

Eight-year-old Laurie Cleevely goes to Naunton Park School and joined the protest with his parents Lorraine and Adrian.

His mother said: "He doesn't know what this mast might hold for his future.

"We want to make sure he grows up into a healthy young man."

Raj Gandhi, who lives in Mead Road , was protesting along with his sons Neil, 16, and James, 11.

He said: "From a health point of view there's no definitive study to say mobile phone masts don't do any harm."

Helen Maslin, who lives in Asquith Road, added: "The mast will look shocking. It'll be a blight."

Householders have been fighting plans for a mast in the area for a year.

Coun Klara Sudbury (Con, All Saints'), chairwoman of the residents' association, said: "People are really upset about this.

"We just want to make our point that people feel strongly."

In August 2004 the company revealed plans to install a mast on Leckhampton Kitchens and Bathrooms' premises in Mead Road .

Residents were up in arms and the freeholder of the building bowed to pressure and decided not to allow it on the building.

Now Hutchison has come back with another proposal.

The company says it has tried to find something that works from a technical point of view and is the least intrusive to the community.

It believes the chosen site is the best it can find and says the mast will comply with strict national guidelines on radiation.

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

Published in Telecomworldwire on Thursday, 07 July 2005 at 12:19 GMT

Copyright (C) 2005, M2 Communications Ltd.

(Have they got the date wrong or is this inside knowledge?)

Mobile networks in the UK capital have been gridlocked after the blasts throughout central London. According to the BBC, Vodafone has announced that it has reserved some network capacity for the emergency service workers dealing with the disaster.

According to Vodafone, all of its switches are at capacity and it is having to free up a portion of the network to ensure that police and emergency services can communicate, which means that regular customers will not be able to use a proportion of their local base station. The company added that this only related to a section of the network across London, so people can still make calls but it will be much more difficult to make a call than usual.

According to the BBC, Orange and O2 said there was "congestion" on their networks making it hard to get through on the first attempt. In addition, Virgin Mobile has stated that as there are so many people making calls it is taking a while for customers to get through successfully.

The problems with the mobile networks has had a knock-on effect on fixed lines phones, said the BBC. In addition, the BBC has revealed that a spokesman for BT has announced that as so many people were turning to fixed line phones once they found that the mobile network was down that it too was running near to capacity. BT are asking that people only make essential calls to limit the congestion.

--------

UK Officials Expected Attack but Lowered Threat Level
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/070805Z.shtml

--------

I have just heard on Sky News that signals to ordinary mobile phones is blocked. In an emergency such as we are seeing at the moment in London. There are special phones for emergency personnel which contain a chip (which cannot be purchased) enabling them to receive the signal.

Could this also be to block any potential mobile phone bomb?? We know mobiles were used in the Spanish bombings, which highlight another downside to mobile phone technology, along with the muggings, bullying, criminal activity and pornographic usage - not to mention the health implications!

Sylvia

--------

I heard exactly that in one of the earliest reports, that no-one could get a signal, and the journo thought that this was to reduce the risk of bombs being detonated by mobiles!

Amanda

--------

Very true, Jane. It is still not certain that these latest bombs were not detonated by mobile phone. A terrorist expert was on ITV news this morning saying that, on looking at the type of explosions, he thought they were.

The BBC especially have been "promoting" mobile phones throughout their coverage of this attrocity. A reporter even highlighted the fact last night that extra medical staff were called in "by text" (and he repeated the fact twice!). Quite blatant free advertising - or perhaps not free!

I dread to think of the level of emissions the victims were having to cope with in addition to the obvious pain and distress.

Sylvia

--------

As usual I am very sceptical about the reports but my feelings are to try to shame the BBC on their blatant advertising of mobiles. Now I wonder what will happen about the plans to install a massive network of masts in the tube system. Will the argument be that this situation has proved the need for mobiles or will anyone have the guts to say that it will be handing terrorists a gift. I believe that the system was well 'scouted' in order to find where a good signal was. All stations except the beeb said the the cell system had been shut down as a precaution.

For many years now I have said that mobiles were a terrorists dream especially pay as you go because they can't be traced, they are used once then thrown away, or sent to India perhaps or Africa!, add to this the fact that I was warning MP's of the risks of camera when the pre-advertising of them first started.

I really hate it when I am proved right. Maybe we should start a hard publicity campaign using the fact that the government and MP's were warned of what kids and terrorists would do with this phones but yet again didn't listen. Perhaps the cartoon of the big dog with the puppy saying I told you this would happen!. Just a thought.

sueferg

--------

The BBC have been falling over themselves in their reporting to wax lyrical about mobiles, I agree. I have heard the statement that the devices couldn't have been detonated by mobiles as they do not work in the Underground. Not true. There are certain areas of the underground that receive reception, and I would have thought the train was above ground at the entrance to a tunnel.

Amanda

--------

They must have had a signal because we have seen and heard images taken by people who were on the train - and in the tunnel as they were making their way out.

Sylvia

--------

Could we include

The epitome of bystander apathy - a perverted individual who walked around filming the carnage with a mobile rather than going to the assistance of the many people needing attenion?

The amnesiacs - those adults who saw that a 12 year old girl had been trying to text her parents, who have themselves relied on mobiles for so long they did not think to explain to her what a Phone Box was?

Amanda

--------

I still think after everyone saying they couldn’t get signals AFTER the bombs its because they automatically turn networks off cause they know most of these bombs are now detonated by MPhones.

Panarama last night said clearly the train bombs were all detonated by mobile phones.

Cheers

Lisa

--------

Other clarification of if, and how:
http://www.silicon.com/0,39024729,39150177,00.htm

Andy

Falmouth Packet 06.07.05

Anxious residents of Mawnan and Constantine were due to have their fears over Tetra masts answered last night at a public drop-in centre.

Telecommunications company O2, which is responsible for the Tetra mast currently sited at Treworval Farm near Mawnan, held the clinic at Constantine in an attempt to allay fears over the police radio mast.

When announcing the meeting, Peter Sitch, from O2, said: "It's for people to come in and talk on a one-to-one basis. There are many people who are obviously confused by some of the more bizarre suggestions."

One of the main causes for concern by residents is the perceived health risk from the waves that are produced by the masts.

O2 is currently appealing against an enforcement notice by Kerrier district council planning committee, following their decision to refuse retrospective planning permission for the mast in March.

In the past Mr Sitch has described the council as "arrogant" and has said that they could be facing a very large bill.

"We're fully confident that we'll win on this appeal and that we'll also be awarded costs. We always cite costs and we always enforce costs," he said when the enforcement notice was served.

However, some residents believe that the meeting was only held so that the company could prove they consulted the public.

Mawnan resident Richard Smith said: "You could be forgiven for thinking this is a little bit too late. This behaviour is impertinent."

The enforcement notice is currently suspended until the outcome of the inquiry, although this could take up to a year.

BY ANDREW WHITAKER
Leicester Mercury
10:30 - 05 July 2005

Campaigners are fighting plans to build a second mobile phone mast in a street.

Phone company T-Mobile wants to put a 38ft mast in Goodwood Road, Evington.

There is already a similarly sized phone mast, put up by the 3G company, in front of St Joseph 's Roman Catholic Church.

The latest application would see a mast placed on a grass verge about 150ft away, outside the church house.

Angry residents say the second mast would be an eyesore and that they won't let it go ahead.

Brian Stephens, 64, who lives in Greystone Avenue, which backs on to the street, is among the people fighting the mast application.

He said: "We will not put up with this and it will happen over my dead body.

"Another mast would be even more of an eyesore than we have to put up with at the moment and we won't let this one lie.

"People are outraged about this and although we hope it won't get permission, if it does, we will probably pull it down."

Parish priest Father John Lally and people who attend St Joseph 's have criticised the plans from the company, which will go before Leicester City Council's planning committee on July 19.

Father John said: "A lot of church-goers live locally and their main concern would be for the residents.

"The policy of the Catholic church in the Midlands is that because the safety of the masts isn't proved, we won't have anything to do with supporting them."

Kevan Hollidge, 56, who attends church services at St Joseph's, said: "It's a nice church and there shouldn't be masts put up outside it.

"I understand there is a need for masts, but it should be put somewhere away from residential areas."

Mick Jagger, 62, who lives near the planned mast, said: "Masts like this are an eyesore and they devalue property. It's also the thin end of the wedge and we could end up with a lot more masts."

Evington ward councillor Tony O'Brien said: "I would object to this because of the potential health hazards and also because the masts shouldn't be sited in residential areas."

A T-Mobile spokeswoman said: "All communities have the potential to benefit from first-class mobile communications, whether they are used for business, social or emergency purposes.

"When a new mast is needed, we try to reduce the impact on the local environment with sensitive siting, innovative design and, where appropriate, landscaping."

A spokeswoman from 3G said: "We are committed to the highest scientific and safety standards in all our operations.

Omega there are no safety standards in their operations and their equipment is not safe. See under: http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

"All our equipment is safe by design and is in full compliance with the international public emission guidelines."

by Stuart Pollitt
The Chronicle West Midlands
Jul 5, 2005

Another phone mast could soon be on its way to Lichfield city centre, and it will not be the last, a leading campaigner warned today.

Orange wants to install a 22.5m mast in Davidson Road behind Lichfield City Railway Station.

David Brain, from campaign group Stowe Concerned Residents Against Masts (SCRAM), criticised the application but fears there will be more mast bids because of the determination of phone giants to install new poles for 3G technology.

Mr Brain, who successfully led a fight to stop Vodafone putting up a 25m mast off Eastern Avenue, claimed the majority of people did not even want the 3G technology on their phones.

The Davidson Road proposal would include an antennae and four dishes on a concrete tower on Sellrite Automotive.

Mr Brain said: “There will be continuing pressure in Lichfield and everywhere else. The vast majority of people do not want this massive proliferation of masts. They don’t want 3G.”

Mr Brain said mobile phone giants had forked out billions for 3G licences from the government.

He said: “These companies have so much money they are throwing money at agents to get these applications in and all that stands in their way are a small number of individuals trying to help protect people.”

The SCRAM chairman said phone mast applications were a problem across the country and added the sheer volume of application could eventually wear down protesters’ opposition.

Lichfield has seen a spate of applications in recent months, which have been fought by groups like SCRAM and Boley Park Action Group, which successfully battled a planned mast in Darnford Lane .

The plans for the Davidson Road mast are available for inspection at Lichfield District Council’s offices, in Frog Lane.

A spokesman for Orange was unavailable for comment.

Jul 6 2005

by Richard Freeman-Wallace, The Journal Newcastle

Mobile-phone masts are multiplying but shrinking. They are being disguised as chimneys, trees, clocks, windows, drainpipes, even as weather vanes, all in an effort to meet the demands of planning departments.

The Government has commissioned the University of Reading and Arup to undertake an independent study to assess the impact the Best-Practice Code on Mobile Phone Network has had since its introduction last September.

This is part of a review of all planning arrangements on masts.

Third-generation mobile-phone masts have smaller cells, and so need to be sited closer to their customers - often within housing, industrial and retail estates. Within five years, there will be about 60,000 sites for these masts.

Operators run the risk of having their licences removed if they do not have substantial coverage (80%) by then.

Landowners and landlords may find themselves with a mast on their land that, once in place, proves tricky to shift.

Telecoms operators require a wayleave to place equipment on land. However, the wayleave can be granted by the occupiers and "owners of interests" in land, who include tenants, not just the landlord or freeholder.

An occupying tenant can therefore enter into a wayleave agreement with an operator that will bind the landlord. Obviously, landowners need to protect their property by ensuring the tenant's lease contains a provision requiring the landlord's consent before entering into such an agreement.

Section 96 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 provides that this consent must not be unreasonably withheld.

Hard to remove

However, even if the landlord finds himself with a fait accompli and asks for the apparatus to be removed, the operator has the right to apply for a court order to confirm its right to be there and to compensate the landlord with cash.

The court will favour the landlord only if it believes his position is harmed more than the public good is served. This has not yet happened. If you, the landlord, originally gave permission for a wayleave, but want to get rid of it at the end of the term, you might be in for an unpleasant surprise.

Once again, if the operator does not agree to leave, the landlord's only recourse for removal of the apparatus is to make a court application and explain why financial compensation is not adequate and why his interest as owner of the land overrides the stated policy interest of the public in having access to a telecommunication network.

Bear in mind that when granting a wayleave, they can stick for an indefinite period, like superglue, on your land.

Commercial value

As a landlord you should be aware of the value of your land to the mast operators. It is much harder for the operators to find urban sites and they are more than likely to pay premiums for them in the current climate.

Rent reviews should be index linked and be dependent on the type of equipment proposed.

An operator's ability to share its equipment with others will always be included in the terms it proposes to a landowner, but it is possible to include this as a factor when determining rent on review and to negotiate a share of income from those others.

You should also take care to limit liability for damage caused by operation of the equipment once in service. The physiological effects of microwave propagation on a wide scale create lurid headlines, but are still not fully understood and liability should be firmly placed where it belongs - with the operator.

Planning permission

Under planning regulations, operators are now required to consult widely on the possibility of using an existing mast or structure before seeking to put up a new mast.

Although the smaller masts - under 15 metres in height - don't generally require planning permission, the operator still has to submit an application for determination, which the local authority must deal with within 56 days.

If a decision is not made in 56 days, it is approved by default. The authority cannot reject such an application on principle, but only on details of siting and appearance. These details can include:

* The height of the site in relation to surrounding land;
* The existence of topographical features and natural vegetation;
* The effect on the skyline or horizon;
* The site when observed from any side;
* The site in relation to areas designated locally for their scenic or conservation value;
* The site in relation to other masts, structures or buildings, including buildings of a historical or traditional character;
* The site in relation to homes.

The third-generation mobile phone masts could mean that a landowner's property is continuously engaged for the foreseeable future, so take great care when contemplating a wayleave agreement.

Richard Freeman-Wallace is head of property at Watson Burton LLP.