by Richard Williams

Halesowen Chronicle

Jun 17, 2005 , 09:39

Radical plans to stop phone mast applications that "waste tax payers' money" have been unveiled by a Halesowen councillor.

Hayley Green and Cradley South Councillor Ken Turner wants to initiate six-monthly meetings between mobile phone giants and planning bosses. The move comes three years after initial attempts to launch the scheme failed due to lack of support.

Councillor Turner said two current applications - one on green belt in Lutley Mill Road and one just yards from Huntingtree Primary School - were so outrageous they should not even go before Dudley Council's development control panel.

He said: "Both the application for the school and for the green belt land in Lutley Mill Road are a joke.

"If someone can provide me with evidence that these masts are safe to be near children I will not try to stop them being put up - but that has not yet happened.

"Any mast on green belt land will be out of place and totally alien to the environment.

We shouldn't be wasting the development control committee's time and money with this sort of thing.

Councillor Turner was instrumental in abortive plans to arrange regular meetings with mobile phone firm representatives in 2002.

"We had difficulties last time getting members to come along but I think things have changed quite dramatically since then.

"I think the time is now right for councillors to get together around a table with people from the mobile companies and look after residents' interests."

He said phone company representatives could bring prospective plans for applications to meetings where issues could be ironed out ahead of the more costly planning process.

A spokeswoman for Vodafone said they would be in favour of the proposals.

"We are always very happy to talk to local councillors and make use of their extensive knowledge of the area," she said.

A spokesman for Dudley Council said no objections had been received from members of the public on either the Lutley Mill Road or Huntingtree Primary School applications.

Advice Line 08704 322 377

Press Office 01962 864 388

PRESS RELEASE

MAST SANITY PRESS RELEASE – JUNE 16th 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MONEY BEFORE CHILDREN'S HEALTH: THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP SCANDAL

The numbers of representations that Mast Sanity is receiving from concerned PARENTS has during the last few months increased substantially owing to considerable powers that private contractors have been granted under schemes to build new schools and other educational facilities.

Evidence is emerging that private companies and venture capitalists who are winning contracts to build new schools are having mobile phone and TETRA masts on school premises. Parents are questioning who will be receiving the rental income from the phone companies, and whether inappropriate pressure is being placed on educational facilities to accept telecommunication installations contrary to the wishes of staff, parents and governors due solely to financial interests of the venture capitalists and others who are potentially profiting from the fees that can amount to £20,000 per annum per installation, contrary to the interests and well-being of the pupils.

The Public Private Partnership (formerly PFI) is a scheme whereby private companies or consortiums raise the money needed to build new schools or refurbish existing ones and then lease them back to the local education authority complete with services. The education authority then makes annual payments to the private consortium. The contract is between the private consortium and the council. Parents fear powers will be removed from the school governors, who are being forced into contracts for repairs and maintenance and service contracts without detailed information on the proposals. Service contracts are also being transferred to private contractors.

Jo Ross, a parent who lives in Werrington in Peterborough, fears that she will be forced to move her daughter to another school. The one she presently attends is to be refurbished by a private contractor under this initiative. She is concerned that income from phone masts on school premises may find its way into the pocket of the venture capital company undertaking the refurbishment and may be viewed as a lucrative source of revenue.

"There are already three masts in the school grounds and there is nothing to stop a private consortium from having further masts on the premises and I fear the school governors and parents will be powerless to stop them," says Mrs Ross.

"New schools are being built all over Peterborough and so there is nothing to stop private consortiums who are building the schools from having phone and TETRA masts on the premises of several schools."

"The secondary school in Walton in Peterborough is also to be rebuilt by a private consortium and the mast on the roof of the existing school in Walton will be transferred to the new school."

Mast Sanity has also been informed that at least two of the companies tendering for a contract to build schools in Peterborough are also involved in mobile phone telecommunications equipment and installations.

Mast Sanity advice line co-ordinator Sandi Lawrence says, "This is another phone mast scandal that Mast Sanity is now getting calls from concerned parents about. Mobile phone and TETRA masts shouldn't be on school premises because of the health risks from pulsed microwave radiation. Private consortiums shouldn't be allowed to have phone and TETRA masts on school premises as a source of revenue. There are serious question marks over the degree of public accountability locally under this initiative and over public participation and consultation in their planning. It’s possible that mobile phone operators have interests in these private companies and they are all entering into lucrative deals. This is money before children's health."

Mast Sanity's director of health and safety Yasmin Skelt says, "Legal experts have already been called in to investigate whether the mobile phone mast at St Edward's RC Primary School in Coleshill in Warwickshire can be pulled down because of concerns over the health of the pupils. This follows an informal health survey which appears to show that 98 per cent of pupils are suffering from health problems which include headaches, nausea, itchy eyes, tiredness or nosebleeds. The findings of this survey, carried out with parents of 200 children at the school, is to be presented to a meeting of the World Health Organisation in Geneva this week, to call for a national study into the health of every child whose school is close to a phone mast or has one on its premises."

ENDS


Mast Sanity Contacts:
Yasmin Skelt 01923 286430
Sian Meredith 01225 483284
Karen Barratt 01962 864388
jo-ross@btconnect.com

For general information see http://www.mastsanity.org

--------

For information

Another appeal goes against us!


Geoff. Thanks for this. Another aspect that we must keep our eye on. Sefton has no plans for any PFI school contracts, so that's a relief. Regret to report that having beaten off the mast on the roof of the BT building at Mill Lane/Botanic Rd several times that the contractors arrived this week to erect one. You will recall that separate applications were rejected THREE times by Sefton planning committee but after the third rejection the phone company appealed and won permission from the inspector. This is just inside Churchtown Conservation Area for goodness sake ! But, yet again,local democracy (?) has been overturned by a non-elected individual planning inspector. I spoke at all the planning committee meetings on behalf of our Meols ward team.

From a visual point of view, the drawings showed a very slimline structure so it should not be an eyesore....but that is not the point, as we all know.

Nil deperandum..

Best wishes

David Tattersall
Councillor for the Environment

The Derbyshire Times 16.

CODNOR residents are demanding that a mobile telephone mast is taken down.

Planning permission for the mast near Codnor Market Place expired last year, but the 15ft pole is still standing.

An application to renew planning permission for the mast until December 2009 was made at the end of last year, but councillors deferred making a decision until further investigations had been carried out.

Now seven months later, no decision has been made and residents are calling for the mast to come down.

This week Amber Valley Borough Council said they were still looking into the legality of the mast remaining on the site.

Angry Mill Lane resident Shelia Jackson said: "It shouldn't take this long, it's taking forever to get the mast down."

At the planning meeting in November, councillors related back to a planning application approved earlier in the year for a trellis mast on the same site.

Councillors believed when they approved the trellis mast that it would reduce the number of individual masts on the site as mast sharing was possible.

However, phone company O2 claimed mast sharing was not an option, stating: "The lattice tower is not capable of supporting a third operator without further redevelopment."

Amber Valley's planning executive, Robert Reid, supported the deferral of the decision, adding: "There is merit in investigating whether the phone operators can go together on the new trellis mast."

Jessop Street resident Cliff Jones is angry with the delay, he said: "They are just dragging their feet. The mast should have been taken down months ago. We want it down and down now.

"Decisions about mast sharing should have been sorted before the lattice tower was granted planning permission."

By Stephen Sinfield

16 June 2005

Haverhill Today

The campaign against a mobile phone mast on Haverhill's Hazel Stub roundabout continued this week, with residents urging members of the local community to oppose the plans.

As previously reported, Hutchison 3G is appealing against a decision by St Edmundsbury Borough Council to refuse permission for a telecommunications mast on the roundabout.

Residents collected a petition of 400 signatures opposing the mast, amid concerns about health and tumbling house prices, but were stunned to find out the Planning Inspectorate – which is handling the appeal – would not accept the petition.

On Monday evening they began canvassing homes in Castle Reach area, to gather signatures on letters to be sent to the appeal.
Borough councillor, Adam Whittaker, said they had a good response and people were eager to support the cause.

On whether they would succeed in fighting the appeal, he said: "I think the decision of the planning committee was made on the right basis, we argued on the environmental basis and we're hoping the appeals committee will do the same."

He added: "Everyone's got a mobile phone but they just wish the masts were on more suitable sites."

Meanwhile protestors say they are angry to have so far received no response from Hutchison 3G to their request to work with the company to find a more suitable location.

West Suffolk MP, Richard Spring – who has vociferously campaigned against phone masts in the town – has added his support to the campaign, writing personally to the Planning Inspectorate.

16 June 2005

16 June 2005 | 09:57

Dunmow Broadcast and Recorder

IF THEY have got to have a new mobile phone mast, it could look like a fir tree!

Villagers on the edge of Dunmow are objecting fiercely to mobile operator Hutchinson G3's plan to put up a most on a field at Ash Grove just off the A120 to improve reception in an admitted poor coverage.

But if Uttlesford District Council approves the application, it could be disguised as one of these trees - like ones at Hallingbury and Hatfield Forest - instead of the normal eyesore lattice mast.

Sof ar people living near the site of the proposed mast have sent the council 138 letters objecting to the plan.

Uttlesford District Council received the letters from homeowners prior to the plans being considered by the council's development control committee last Wednesday.

A number of councillors were concerned about the plans, including Janice Loughlin who asked if it could be turned into a tree mast to suit the rural area it was situated in.

She said: "Seeing as it is among or near some trees, can we not specify that it is a tree mast?"

And Councillor Richard Harris questioned whether there was any need for the mast as the residents who were opposed to it would be the ones needing it the most.

He said: "Isn't it interesting that the people who are opposed to the mast are the very people who would want it."

But planning manager John Mitchell said the question of demand should not prevent the application being approved because it was not a planning consideration.

The councillors put off making an imemdiate decision.

Instead, they agreed to go and visit the site to see the situation for themselves.

Lancaster Guardian 16.06.05

CAMPAIGNERS fighting plans to erect a mobile phone mast in Scale Hall this week handed more than 150 letters of objection to Lancaster City Council.

They will find out today, Friday, whether the council will move to prevent telecommunications giant O2 building the mast on land at the corner of West Drive and Scale Hall Lane.

The O2 application exploits a quirk in British planning law by asking for 'prior approval'. To block the plan, the council must object on the grounds that the mast represents an unwarranted visual intrusion.
The council contacted nearby residents in May to invite their comments, setting a deadline of Wednesday, June 15.

Petition

Rosemary Wilkie of West Drive, who led the campaign, said she had been delighted by the community's response.

"We've sent 159 letters and talked to a lot of people who sent in letters off their own back. I'm sure if we'd had more time we'd have got even more," she said.

A petition signed by more than 400 people has also been presented to the council.

"The petition adds weight to our argument," said Rosemary.

"But I think letters from individuals and addresses in the affected area will have more of an impact."

Rosemary said she and her neighbours, mostly virgin campaigners, were learning the ropes as they went along.

"From what we've gleaned, we have to fight this on the visual intrusion of the mast," she said. "Any potential health issues are not taken into account."

This annoys Rosemary's husband Jim.

"The real health issue is the stress and anxiety which comes from not knowing whether these masts are safe," he said.

But fellow campaigner Ken Pyne of Morecambe Road is confident the visual intrusion will be adequate to kill the plan.

"There'll be a large equipment box, a large electrical box, not to mention the mast itself, which will be half again as big as an ordinary lamp-post," he said.

"No way can that be anything but obtrusive."

The campaigners are now hopeful the council will pay heed to their concerns, said Rosemary.

A planning spokesman said: "All the observations we have received will be taken into account in reaching a recommendation and decision."

r NotoO2 campaigners who successfully scuppered plans to build masts in Slyne Road have made a film highlighting the potential health risks of emissions from mobile phones.

They intend to distribute the film – which shows campaigners measuring pulsed microwave radiation in houses near mobile phone masts – to councillors, MPs and the media.

Campaigner Adrian Hamilton said: "The idea behind the film is to convey the notion that these masts, especially those disguised as other things, are not as innocuous as they look."

16 June 2005

Wolverhampton Chronicle

Jun 16, 2005, 11:20

Mobile phone companies are being warned they will be fought all the way over the growing number of bids to erect masts close to homes and schools in Wolverhampton.

The council's three political parties are vowing to oppose all plans for masts in residential areas after mobile firms began asking councillors to support applications for aerials as tall as 15 metres.

In recent months, scores of applications have come in from companies eager to erect masts close to schools, old people's homes and even on top of a pub.

Although councillors have vowed to take a hard line with the phone companies, fears over unknown health risks are not actually a legitimate reason to refuse the applications.

Leader of the city's Conservative group Councillor Paddy Bradley said applications for masts across the city were rolling in "thick and fast".

"They haven't got the message yet but we are very definitely against them," she said.

"We are still worried they can do damage to children," adding that the mobile phone firms were wasting "time and effort" putting in applications for residential areas of Wolverhampton.

Labour councillor George Lockett hoped that a decision by planning officers last week to throw out an application for a mast in Whitburn Close in Oxley would act as a "warning" to mobile phone companies, after a petition attracted 200 signatures.

He said never again should companies be allowed to build masts close to schools - such as the one on top of Long Knowle Primary in Wednesfield.

Liberal Democrat Malc-olm Gwinnett added: "The situation at the moment is utterly ridiculous and the sooner the phone companies realise this the better."

Councillors are also highly critical of the tactics employed by T-Mobile, after private canvassing companies wrote to them on the telecommunication giant's behalf asking them to back its bids to erect phone masts. It is also believed Vodafone has used similar methods.

In just two of the city's 20 wards, Oxley and Wednesfield North, around eight masts have been proposed in this way in recent months.

Oxley Councillor Ian Brookfield said: "It looks like what they are doing is trying to win over the councillor instantly but the minute they start talking about residential areas, they need to know we are on the side of the residents."

Councillor Keith Inston, chairman of the city council's planning committee, said residents' fears were always considered when making decisions on applications. He said the council would be "a bit more open to suggestion" when it came to applications for masts in industrial areas.

A T-Mobile spokesman defended the decision to contact councillors with proposals, saying they gave people "a better idea as to the visual appearance of the proposed development".

by James Varley

Pontefract and Castleford Today

FURIOUS Kippax residents are dismayed by a mobile phone company's refusal to take down a video phone mast built in the middle of their busy shopping street.

Protesters – including Leeds City councillor Keith Wakefield – who claim the mast is unsightly and a potential health hazard, met with Hutchinson 3G on May 13 in a last ditch attempt to have the four-metre base station hauled down.

But H3G decided to leave the mast on top of the Craftsman Cues building on High Street and not move it to an alternative site away from residents – as suggested by Coun Wakefield and protesters.
Coun Wakefield said: "I am extremely disappointed H3G have not decided to move the mast to one of the alternative sites suggested by myself and my constituents.

"The whole process has been conducted in a lacklustre manner that has seen minimal consultation take place between H3G and concerned residents."

Protester Richard Sheppard, 57, said: "This is not the end of our fight – we will continue with our attempts to have this unsightly mast hauled down.

"Unfortunately, the meeting between ourselves and H3G was a token gesture because the mast was already built."

The mast, which did not require planning permission as it is under 25m, went up in the High Street in April despite objections from residents, including a 300-signature petition.

An H3G spokesman said: "We took on board the residents' comments regarding an alternative site following our meeting with them.

"A radio engineer looked at the alternative sites suggested by residents even though the base station is operating.

"They offered insufficient coverage for Kippax proving our original decision was correct. The residents' insistence that we move the base station would be detrimental to coverage and we do not intend to pursue that route."

16 June 2005

Harlow Star 16.06.05

HARLOW MP Bill Rammell has censured mobile phone companies for failing to give people living near potential mast sites enough time to make their views heard.

Mr Rammell said he was appalled by the circumstances surrounding the recent application by O2 to erect a 12.5m (41ft) mast in the grounds of the Territorial Army base in Old Harlow.

The application was thrown out by council officers last month on the grounds it would cause significant harm to the comfort of residents and was contrary to the Local Plan.

People living in Bury Road, St John's Road and Old Road have since lobbied Mr Rammell, complaining that neither they nor users of the TA centre and nearby Harlowbury Primary School were properly informed of the application.

At the time a Harlow Council spokeswoman said letters had been sent to Old Road and St John's Road residents and some in Bury Road had also been consulted.

But this week Bury Road resident Kylie Jones said: "The lack of any consultation by O2 in this matter contradicts policies they themselves have published on their website.

"We trust O2 will now find a suitable site away from residential areas and schools and not appeal against this common sense decision."

Mr Rammell said the firm had breached a code of practice agreed by all mobile phone companies which includes a promise to significantly improve consultation.

He has written to the company's chief executive Peter Erskine demanding an explanation.

"I am appalled at the way in which the company, having signed up to the code several years ago, have disregarded it," he said.

"I am also concerned that the mobile phone operators generally are not abiding by the sprit of the code of practice here in Harlow."

Phone masts have courted controversy in recent years due to fears their emissions pose significant health risks.

Last year O2 was granted permission to erect three 16m-high masts and a base station at the Latton Bush Centre, in Southern Way, despite protests from local residents.

Jun 16, 2005, 16:13 Great Barr Chronicle

A decision to refuse planning permission for a mobile phone mast just weeks after approval was granted for a similar structure nearby has baffled Oscott councillors.

Government planning inspectors upheld a decision to refuse permission for the mast on Queslett Road two weeks after Birmingham's planning committee gave the go-ahead for a similar application on the opposite side of the road.

Mobile phone firm O2 applied to Walsall Council earlier this year for permission to erect a ten metre high mast on land close to the junction of Queslett Road and Doe Bank Lane. Walsall's planning committee threw out the plans, forcing O2 to appeal.

The inspectors have now decided to back the council's original decision and refuse the proposal.

In the meantime, rival phone company T-Mobile applied to Birmingham Council for permission to site a 12 metre mast on land close to the Deer's Leap pub.

Despite overwhelming opposition from local residents, Birmingham planners gave the green light to the scheme.

Ward Councillors John Cotton, Barbara Dring and Keith Linnecor, who led the fight against both applications, said that they were "baffled" by the different stance taken by the two local authorities.

Councillor Cotton said:"It simply beggars belief that one side of the Queslett Road can be ruled as wholly unsuitable for a mast by a Government-appointed inspector, while Birmingham's planners seem content to allow a mast to be put up on the opposite side of the road, just a matter of yards away.

"Residents are understandably angry at Birmingham's failure to defend their interests, compared to the tougher stance taken by Walsall Council".

Cllr Dring, who collected a 500-signature petition against the Deer's Leap mast, added: "The Planning Inspector's findings are correct and welcome, but I have to say that they will come as cold comfort to local people who have already been let down by Birmingham's decision to allow the Deer's Leap mast through without a fight."