Waltham Forest Guardian

PLANS for a phone mast were rejected by councillors after long discussions of the potential health risks.

The mast would have stood 50ft above the ground on Sutherland House, Sutherland Road, Walthamstow, a 1950s commercial building bordering on an industrial area.

However the site is surrounded by residential properties and towers above both Willowfield School and Hillyfield Primary School.

When residents heard of Vodafone's plans during the Easter holidays, they mounted a campaign to fight it, fearing the possible health impact on schoolchildren and women attending a nearby antenatal clinic.

Residents Against the Mast (RAM) collected signatures on a petition and several residents sent individual letters of objection.

Helen Schafer, of Sutherland Road, spoke at the planning committee meeting and said: "I realise I am by no means alone in feeling sceptical about probable health risks.

"Two schools were not informed by the council and one made its objection to Vodafone clear.

"Many parents of both schools have not been informed and have no clue their children's health is in danger."

Higham Hill councillors Peter Woollcott and Sean Meiszner spoke out against the mast, highlighting the 200 homes planned for the site of the old mill, only yards away from the proposed mast.

A spokesman for Vodafone claimed the radiation towards nearby schools and homes would be only "a small amount" and complied with Government guidelines, so the planning committee could not reject the mast on health grounds and rejected it on the basis of adverse visual impact on the area.

Seven councillors rejected the plans and only two voted in favour of the mast.

10:19am Thursday 23rd June 2005

23 June 2005 Norwich Evening News

Campaigners have been dealt a blow after a planning inspector agreed to allow a mobile phone mast to be installed in Norwich - once it has been painted light green.

Planners at Norwich City Council initially threw out proposals from 3, formerly Hutchinson 3G, to build a 12.5 metre slim-line mast at the junction of Gipsy Lane and Farrow Road, Norwich, because they deemed it an eyesore.

In July 2004 the Evening News reported how concerned families fired off more than 20 letters of objection about the application, which they felt they were not consulted about.

But the communications giant 3, formerly Hutchinson 3G, has had its appeal against the decision upheld by a Government planning inspector who visited the site last month.

“No development shall take place until after the development has been painted in accordance with a colour scheme to be approved in writing by the local planning authority,” said the inspector responsible for the report.

Householders claimed they only heard about the application after they got a letter from the Green Party asking them to object.

“I'm very disappointed,” said Helen Smith, a mum-of-one from Gipsy Lane, who was one of a number of people in the area to have opposed the application.

“We do walk down that road quite a bit just past it to walk the dog. I'm concerned that it's near to the electricity sub-station and what the cumulative effects might be.”

Mike Wensley, 69, who lives on Earlham Road near to the mast, was another person to have campaigned against the mast.

His wife, Eileen, 66, said: “We've just come back from holiday and didn't know all this was happening.

“We're both against it because it can make a lot of difference to us - both of us are not happy about it to put it mildly, it can cause a lot of problems.”

Rupert Read, a city councillor for Wensum ward where the mast will be sited, was influential in helping form the campaign against the mast in the first place.

“I feel furious and I think it's absolutely disgraceful,” said Mr Read. “One of the things that it shows is that the powers we have as local councillors and residents to stop these masts being put up are far too limited.”

Mr Read said the laws needed to be changed to give local authorities the power to stop masts springing up.

The Evening News has campaigned against the installation of mobile phone masts near to homes and schools until it is proved they are safe.

“We're pleased that the planning inspector has made that decision,” said Mike Davies, community affairs manager for 3.

Bromsgrove Standard 23 June 05

A TOTAL of 363 South Birmingham residents have signed a petition to protest at the controversial proposal to build a mobile phone mast in Rednal.

And, in addition to the signatures, more than 50 people turned up to a special meeting on Tuesday (June 21) at St Stephen's Church to voice their concerns.

The action relates to an application by T-Mobile to build an 18.7metre mobile phone mast on the corner of Lowhill Lane and Lickey Road which residents feel be a blot on the landscape.

Joanne Davey, a member of the group, said: "There has been an awful lot of concern from residents who think it will spoil the appearance of the local area.

"There are schools, nurseries and around 400 houses in the surrounding area and everyone will be forced to look at it on a daily basis.

"And we are also concerned that it will become another area for kids to hang out in and graffitti."

MP Richard Burden was unable to make the meeting due to parliamentary business in London, but sent a representative on his behalf.

"I am also pleased that local councillors were there - it is very important that the council takes into consideration what residents have to say on matters such as these, and listen to their views,” he added.

The deadline for letters against the proposal was June 22, but this has now been extended to Wednesday (June 29).

A T-Mobile spokesperson said it recognised that one of its biggest challenges was minimising the impact on the environment.

"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.

"We are always conscious of local wildlife and conversation," he added.

A Birmingham City Council spokesperson said the application was being considered and if it was going to committee it would probably be on July 7.

The Bromsgrove Standard 23 June 05

RESIDENTS living near a proposed mobile phone mast site are seeking an urgent meeting with the company after fears the development could be hazardous to their health.

The issue was discussed at a meeting of the town's planning committee on Monday (June 20) and it was decided no decision should be taken until all interested parties had met.

Members of the planning committee resolved not to give approval to the development. But if a public meeting is not held before July 18, the last day on which the council can make a decision, the application will automatically be granted.

T-Mobile want to build a station and 12-metre 3G mast at the Texaco garage on Old Birmingham Road, Lickey, close to Lickey Hills nursery school.

Officers said 163 letters of objection had been received from irate residents opposed to the plans and a petition with 14 signatures from the nursery.

Committee members expressed concerns that as it was classed as a permitted development, the only reason they could refuse the application would be an objection to where it was situated.

Coun Jean Luck said local people had very deep concerns over the proposals and all members agreed to delegate powers to officers to arrange a meeting.

Coun Roger Hollingworth said: "We should stand with the people of Bromsgrove and reject this application and let the Government decide."

T-Mobile spokesman John Shaughnessy said they had looked at alternatives but regarded the option with a replica telegraph pole as a suitable solution.

"The weight of world-wide scientific evidence is that there is no link between these base stations and the health of the community," he said.

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

robert.george@bromsgrovestandard.co.uk

by Neil Elkes, Evening Mail Birmingham

Jun 23 2005

FAMILIES' delight at the removal of a mobile phone mast next to a primary school was short lived after another sprung up in its place just hours later.

Campaigners and parents have battled to get the mast on the roof of AAP Consulting of Union Drive, Boldmere, taken down.

They thought they had won the fight when planning chiefs ordered its removal.

But after pulling down the offending mast, AAP director Stephen Alexander simply put another up and started the whole application process again.

And there was nothing the residents could do because he was exploiting a loophole in planning regulations.

The AAP building is next to the St Nicholas RC Primary School in Jockey Road and parents fear that masts so close could harm children.

Government watchdogs have advised caution against siting masts next to schools.

AAP has repeatedly ignored the pleas and petitions and has previously tried to place masts on the roof of his building by telling planners they are mounting poles for security cameras.

MAST LOOPHOLE

Do we need tighter controls on the placing of mobile phone masts? Let us know YOUR views.


Name:

Email:

Street Name:

City Name:

Comments:



Your words may be used by the Evening Mail.

If you want your comment considered for publication please give us address information. We reserve the right to edit your emails.

He has instead sidestepped a costly legal action and enforcement by removing the offending masts and putting temporary ones on a trailer next door.

Sandra O'Keefe said: "This means we have to start the legal battle all over again and in the meantime Mr Alexander is lining his pockets for the next few months."

Sutton Coldfield Labour activist and local resident Dr Rob Pocock said: "It's simply no good relying on planning law to restrict masts.

"We have a total merry-go-round with the Union Drive case, the condemned mast is replaced by a temporary affair and we have to go right back to step one again.

"There needs to be a firm and clear legal exclusion zone for masts in the wide vicinity of sensitive areas such as schools, not on planning grounds but on the potential risk to children's health," he added.

Mr Alexander did not reply to calls from the Evening Mail.

Barry and District News 23 June 05

THE principal of Barry Technical College is to arrange a meeting with the college's governing body to discuss the long-term future of a mobile-phone mast in the grounds.

Orange, which owns the mast, is proposing to share it with telecommunication rivals Vodafone and 02.

This would mean adding six additional antennae to the structure.

A drop-in session, organised by Orange, was held at Barry College on Thursday, June 16, to enable local residents to express their concerns about the mast to company representatives.

Barry College principal Paul Halstead, who was at the drop-in session, said: "When I first heard about the mast share proposal, I wrote to Orange to object on the basis of the uncertain risk to health - and I still think there is an uncertain risk to health.

"What I intend doing now, is take this to Barry College 's governing body and discuss it, and the long-term future of the mast."

Most of the people who attended the meeting were residents of nearby estate The Heathers, who have been campaigning for several weeks against the Orange mast-share proposal.

After the meeting, one campaigner, Bill Homer, said: "I'm glad that we have been able to give our point of view.

"They listened politely to what we had to say but I'm sure their attitude is that they will get the planning permission anyway."

A spokesman for Orange said: "Following on from the discussions at the meeting, a number of points have been raised.

"Orange will, wherever possible, endeavour to resolve these outstanding concerns."

"While Orange does still intend to submit an application for the proposed site share, we will only do so after we have responded to the residents' main concerns."

Edgeware and Mill Hill Times 23 June 04

As an East Finchley resident who lives within 100 yards of Holy Trinity Church and the site of the proposed telephone mast, I am disappointed with your report (June 16) that there has been no response from the vicar, the Rev Laurence Hill, to protests. I have known him for over 20 years and have previously found him to be very responsive to community concerns.

In the meantime, remarks attributed to Mr John Horsley, QS4 project manager, are only inflaming the situation by trying to belittle the cause of those who are opposed to a potential health hazard that will further encourage the deployment of already over-used mobile phones.

Mr Horsley has also queried the motives of our MP, Rudi Vis.

Dr Vis's conscientious attention to issues such as this which affect his constituents was a major reason why he was returned to Parliament for Finchley and Golders Green in May of this year.

John Davies,
Manor Park Road, East Finchley

Derbyshire Times

Furious campaigners are waging a David-and-Goliath-style battle to stop a mobile phone giant building a 17.5m mast on their doorstep.

Furious campaigners are waging a David-and-Goliath-style battle to stop a mobile phone giant building a 17.5m mast on their doorstep.
Around 40 residents have joined forces after operator O2 lodged a planning application for the roadside mast, which would be erected on the pavement between GKN Sheepridge Social Club and West View Road on Newbold Road.

They have vowed to bombard Chesterfield Borough Council planning chiefs with letters of objection and have set about collecting hundreds of signatures on an anti-mast petition.

Kaz Undrell, whose West View Road home is 40m from the propsed site, said: "O2 have already applied for a few sites in Newbold – and have been turned down for every one.

"The mast they are tallking about here will be twice the height of the surrounding trees and over 40 residents have already held a meeting to voice their opposition.

"Most people are worried about the health implications of putting a mast close to their homes; others are worried about the aesthetic appearance of the mast; and some fear its roadside location will prove dangerous if there is an accident."

Mrs Undrell, spokeswoman for the campign group, said mobile phone operators should look at upgrading and sharing existing masts before building new ones in residential locations.

She added: "We are very hopeful that the borough council will listen to public opinion. Nobody knows how safe these masts are and in our book unsure is unsafe."

A Chesterfield Borough Council spokesman said no date had yet been fixed for the application to be heard.

He added: "All representations will be considered by planning commitee in the determination of the application along with local and national planning policies on the location of telecom equipment."

23 June 2005

Looks like my email bombardment of B & H Councillors with MS messages over the last 2 yrs is paying off.

Burgess is a real s... . In emails to me he's questionned all the evidence on masts and water fluoridation I've sent him. When I mention the precautionary principle I get stonewalled.

Council Leader Bodfish - well known and unpopular supporter of water fluoridation and cynical about mast campaigners. Has failed to vote for anti fluoridation and mast democratisation Motions which thankfully were passed by the Council anyway.

Hawkes and Elgood are I think on our side,.

Recently appointed Brighton Mayor Bob Carden was recently promoted from Chair of the Planning Committee where he always waved masts through whenever he had the casting vote and voted against the phone mast Motion. And the same paper which published this arerticle has done nothing but kiss his b... since he took office.

Best
Gary

Phone mast site options thrown out

by Andy Tate

The Argus Brighton

Moves to offer council-owned sites for new mobile phone masts have been thrown out.

Brighton and Hove City Council's Labour leadership had hoped to authorise six sites in the city for use by mobile operators in an attempt to control the location of the masts.

The suggested sites, all on council-owned property, were in Norton Road car park, Dyke Road Avenue, Goldstone Crescent, Mile Oak Road, Hollingdean Depot and Saunders Hill.

Finance councillor Simon Burgess said: "If we oppose all masts on our land we must accept the consequences which could be inappropriately-placed masts elsewhere in the city, closer to schools and residential properties.

"It's a terribly difficult issue but sometimes we have to be responsible."

If accepted, the move would have represented a change of policy for the council, which until now has chosen to deal with each mast on a case by case basis in planning committee.

But at yesterday's meeting of the policy and resources committee, opposition councillors joined together to reject every suggested site, despite having been warned by a council lawyer that their decision would leave mobile companies with the option of appealing by county court application or judicial review.

Liberal Democrat leader Paul Elgood said: "If we were to support them it would send out the wrong message to residents.

"I will be voting against all of them. We as the landlords have no obligation to take the masts."

Coun Elgood added that while he had received several letters and petitions against phone masts, he was yet to receive a letter complaining about a weak phone signal.

He said later: "This is a warning to the telecommunications industry that the city doesn't want a forest of mobile phone masts close to homes and schools and we will continue the fight against every application."

Labour's education councillor Pat Hawkes rebelled by voting against proposed mast sites in Saunders Hill and Hollingdean, both of which are in her own ward of Hollingbury and Stanmer.

After all six mast sites were rejected, council leader Ken Bodfish accused members of hypocrisy for using mobile technology while refusing to offer sites for masts.

He said: "It's a chaotic situation and the cost to the council could be quite considerable."