Stratford Herald 8th June 2004

THE sanctity of Stratford Cemetery will be destroyed if plans for a mobile phone mast go ahead, it was claimed yesterday (Wednesday).

Campaigners trying to stop the 17-metre-high mast from being put on the chapel in the Evesham Road burial ground will stage a six-hour protest on Saturday.

Dozens of residents, some of whose relatives are buried at the cemetery, are expected to turn out.

Hutchinson 3G made the bid to install the mast there after their original plans to site it at the junction of Evesham Road and Halford Road withdrew the proposal in the face of local opposition which also won the support of Stratford MP John Maples.

Objections to siting the mast on the cemetery chapel were first raised at the annual town meeting in March when electors voted against it by 11 votes to eight with seven abstentions.

--------

David, please note the differing information!

Sandi


PHONE MAST 'DESECRATES CEMETERY'

Stratford Herald

THE sanctity of Stratford Cemetery will be destroyed if plans for a mobile phone mast go ahead, it was claimed yesterday (Wednesday).

Campaigners trying to stop the 17-metre-high mast from being put on the chapel in the Evesham Road burial ground will stage a six-hour protest on Saturday.

Dozens of residents, some of whose relatives are buried at the cemetery, are expected to turn out.

Hutchinson 3G made the bid to install the mast there after their original plans to site it at the junction of Evesham Road and Halford Road withdrew the proposal in the face of local opposition which also won the support of Stratford MP John Maples.

Objections to siting the mast on the cemetery chapel were first raised at the annual town meeting in March when electors voted against it by 11 votes to eight with seven abstentions.

/6/2005

Farnborough News

TEACHERS and residents are battling against proposals for a phone mast to be built close to two schools calioming it will interfere with pupils’ hearing aids.

Rushmoor Borough Council has told residents in Northcote Road , Farnborough, that they are considering plans to install a 10m Vodafone mast next to their homes and less than half a mile from Manor Infant School and Manor County Junior School .

The junior school, in Fernhill Road , has a special unit for children with hearing difficulties.

Headteacher Mark Sands said: “We are very concerned about the mast.

“We have a hearing impaired unit at the school and our hearing impaired advisor has noticed interference with hearing aids in another school because of either a mobile phone mast or a telegraph pole.”

Staff at nearby Manor Infant School agreed. Headteacher Marilyn Penman said: “Like everybody else we have concerns about health and safety for the children — we have the Healthy School Award and we feel that the mast would go against this.
“We have sent a letter to register our objections.”

One of the campaign leaders is Angela Phillips, 37, of Avon Close. She said: “We are told that our objections cannot be on the grounds of potential health issues as they say ‘the government will take full responsibility’ but what evidence have we been given to prove that there is no risk to our health? None.

“We just have to take the word of a government that is not renowned for its honesty.”

Keith Holland, head of planning services, said the council has not made a decision on whether the plans will go ahead. They “will look carefully at what people are saying”.

He said: “We have rejected proposals like this before when we have felt that they are in the wrong position but we cannot reject them on the grounds of health and safety as the government believes there are no grounds to object on that.”

Electro-magnetic service advisor for Vodafone, Jane Frapwell, denied that there is any danger in masts being close to residential areas.

She said: “We do recognise that people have concerns but we do comply with some very stringent international guidelines that are there to protect all of us, whether we are one metre away from the mast or one mile.”

Vodafone claim that an independent body investigated the health and safety of masts.

The Health Protection in its January report said there is no scientific basis for establishing minimal distances between masts and residential areas.

The public is not sure. Northcote Road resident Petula Bradshaw said: “We don’t want it here when it can go somewhere not close to a school, with less housing.”

Her son Martin has secured 300 signatures from people against the mast. He said: “It is a health risk to the local area, it’s an eyesore that we don’t want around and it interferes with hearing aids in school.”

Mrs Dodwell, from Anglesey Avenue , Farnborough, said: “At the end of the day we all have phones and we all moan if they don’t work properly but I think I would want some written evidence that the mast won’t harm my daughter.”

Grange Ward councillor Mike Smith who is also fighting the plans, said: “I’ve always had a pretty volatile opinion towards putting up masts and we have contested several masts from going up before.

“A latest report from Switzerland has confirmed that a serious risk from masts will come through in time but somebody keeps moving the goal posts on conditions of what they can and can’t do.”

Residents are also enraged that Vodafone has not had to apply for planning permission.

But Cllr Holland explained why. “It is true that they don’t need planning permission because it is below the height limit of, I think, 15 metres, but they do need our agreement of the siting of the mast.”

The protestors are now waiting for Rushmoor Council to decide if they will allow Vodafone to build the mast.

But Ms Philips vows that she and other residents will boycott Vodafone if the plans do go ahead.

Picture: Angela Phillips with Jared and Rebecca protesting against a possible Vodafone mast in Northcote Road

8/6/2005 - by Vicki Hammond

Wokingham agree to equipment cabinet but Bracknell refuse antenna

CONFLICTING decisions by two bordering local authorities has meant a mobile phone giant has permission to site its phone equipment but not to build the mast.

Orange had to submit applications to both Bracknell Forest Borough Council and Wokingham District Council because it wanted to put up a mobile phone mast on one side of a main road and the associated cabinet and equipment on the other side.

The mast, which was set to be 12 metres high with three panel antennae and one link antenna, was to be situated in Old Wokingham Road, which comes under the authority of Bracknell Forest Borough Council.

But the cabinet and equipment was to be located on the opposite side of the same road, at its junction with Rowan Drive, falling into the authority of Wokingham District Council.

A bizarre set of planning regulations meant Orange was told it could have permission to build the cabinet but was not allowed to build the telephone mast. The applications were submitted in April and the decisions were made by planning chiefs from each council last month.

Resident John Field, of Rowan Drive, organised a petition against the phone mast last November when Orange first consulted residents living within close proximity of the site. More than 300 people put pen to paper to illustrate their objections but Orange still submitted its application in April.

Mr Field said he and other campaigners were delighted with Bracknell’s decision to reject the phone mast and added they were ‘confused’ about Wokingham’s verdict. He said: “Clearly we are over the moon about Bracknell’s response in rejecting the phone mast which was all that we have ever asked for. “But Wokingham’s decision remains mysterious to say the least as you cannot have one without the other.

“Our objections seem to have held water as far as Bracknell is concerned but we have no idea why Wokingham has given approval for the cabinet. “There is no point having a cabinet when there is no mast, it really is a bizarre situation.”

He also questioned the communication between both councils, and asked if there was any consultation before the decisions were made. “Where is the communication?” he asked. “It seems as if the two authorities work like isolated islands.”

A spokeswoman for Wokingham District Council confirmed there was consultation between both councils but said that each authority had to make its own decision. She said: “We did consult with Bracknell about this and Bracknell did consult with us because the applications were on the border. “As a planning authority we [WDC] can only make a decision on the application which is directly submitted to us. In this case we looked at the application for the cabinet and it was given approval on its own merit.

“They [BFBC] have obviously decided that the mast was unsuitable and have refused it. “It is an unusual situation because the phone mast fell across two areas covered by two different authorities.”

This is East Durham

PLANNERS are being urged to block an application to install a 12-metre high mobile phone mast in a north Durham estate.

Telecommunications company O2 wants to put the mast on land south of Carlingford Road , on the Garden Farm Estate, in Chester-le-Street .

Chester-le-Street District Council has received up to 600 letters objecting to the application.

The campaign was started by Garden Farm Residents' Association and supported by south ward Councillor Linda Ebbatson.

Coun Ebbatson, who is also council leader, said: "It is a wholly inappropriate site for the installation as it is a central location in the estate, which is virtually open plan.

"It would be very intrusive and affect the visual amenity. We want to upgrade this area, not downgrade."

Other residents are opposed to the mast because of health fears and feel it is too near their properties. The closest house is ten minutes from the site.

Householders also feel the mast will devalue their properties and that potential noise could affect their sleeping patterns.

Protestors fear the mast could diminish road safety, could become a distraction for drivers, and become a meeting point for youngsters.

O2 wants to strengthen its third generation mobile phone coverage in the area.

No one from the company was available for comment when contacted by The Northern Echo.

Council officers have written a report with recommendations for the planning committee which will make a final decision.

It said: "In this instance, the height of the proposed installation, relevant to other buildings and street furniture in the area, is considered to represent a form of development inappropriate for the proposed location, which would be harmful to the character and visual amenity of the area.

"It is considered that the applicants have failed to submit the appropriate justification of the need for the development.

"They have failed to adequately demonstrate that any alleged need could not be met, via the installation of an antenna on existing buildings in the surrounding area."

The planning committee meets at Chester-le-Street Civic Centre on Monday.

COUNCILLORS voted to reject applications for masts next to schools, including St Christopher’s Primary

Tameside Advertiser

COUNCILLORS responded to a wave of protest from residents and rejected FOUR applications for mobile phone masts in one go.

This was despite a recommendation from planning officers to grant permission to all four.

The aplications by Vodafone and T-Mobile sparked letters of protest, petitions and a campaign which had the backing of MP David Heyes.

A proposed mast on Woodend Lane , Stalybridge attracted 522 letters of objections plus a petition containing 339 signatures.

Vodafone and T-Mobile have yet to announce whether they will appeal the decisions.

Another application, by T-Mobile for a mast on Broadoak Road , Ashton drew letters from 59 residents detailing concerns which included possible health risks to pupils at nearby St Christopher’s Primary School and Hartshead High School .

Mr Heyes backed their concerns.

Derek Stout, from the residents’ association, said: “I think we can all recall a while ago when people said there was nothing wrong with asbestos or BSE but we all know what happened there. Where this mast is going is where hundreds of children pass every day three or four times.”

He added: “The children are the future, it’s important that we get this right.”

It was refused by Wednesday’s planning committee on the grounds of proximity to local schools. A second application was made by Vodafone for a mast on a pavement opposite Brecon Avenue and Lancaster Road , Denton . It was refused because it was close to a youth centre.

Objectors included the council’s head of sports and cultural services who feared it might deter parents from bringing children to the nearby playing field.

The head of services for children and young people also had reservations because of the proximity to Corrie Primary Schools and Two Trees High School .

A proposed mast on Yew Tree Lane , Dukinfield, sparked a petition signed by 66 residents. Objections against the 15m mast for T-Mobile provoked concerns that it may devalue nearby properties or would be a target for vandalism.

Vicki Davies, whose house is opposite the site, told the panel: “My concern is the radiation. At the end of the day lots of children walk up and down the lane to go to Yew Tree Lane School and Astley High School .

“My child walks up and down Yew Tree Lane three times a day. I am sorry if you want to take risks with my child or anyone else’s.”
Councillors rejected the mast on the grounds of its visual appearance.

A spokeswoman for Vodafone. “Not a decision we take lightly and will give it considerable thought before we decide to proceed. We will look very carefully at the reasons for refusal and what they are.

“The National Radiological Protection Board, who are part of the Health Protection Agency, published a report in January which said there is no scientific basis for setting a minimum distance between a base station and any area where the public is.

“Official guidance is quite clear on these issues. The key issue to remember is the guidelines to protect the public are there to protect whether they are one metre or one mile from a radio base station.

“Clearly, we have many installations on roof tops and inner cities and if we didn’t have them there where people live there would not be a mobile service.”

T-Mobile did not comment.

Morecambe today

PLANS for a mobile phone mast disguised as a lamppost have angered residents at Scale Hall.

The 15-metre mast, for O2, is planned for land fronting shops at the corner of West Drive and Scale Hall Lane.

Residents are planning to oppose the plans but their objections could come to nought.

The application benefits from a quirk in the planning law by asking for 'prior approval'. Rather than going through the normal planning process, this gives the council a short period – 56 days – to dispute some of the details in a limited way.

The authority can raise an objection if the application has an unwarranted visual impact on the area. Possible health effects cannot be taken into account.

If no objection is made within the 56-day period, O2 can go ahead with the mast.

08 June 2005

Burton Mail

by KIM BRISCOE

RESIDENTS have spoken of their outrage after work to erect a mobile phone mast started yesterday – despite assurances the project was on hold.

A crowd of angry villagers gathered in Hillfield Lane after contractors began to lay the foundations for a controversial 15–metre telcommunications mast being erected by mobile phone giants O2.

East Staffordshire Borough Council approved a planning application for the mast in January, despite more than 50 objections from residents concerned about the possible health implications.

However, at the time O2 agreed to meet with residents, councillors and officers to discuss the possibility of finding an alternative site.

During the subsequent meeting the firm made more assurances that it would look for an alternative site and notify the council if any work was to begin — notification which was not received ahead of contractors starting to lay the base for the mast yesterday.

Stretton councillor Ron Clarke accused O2 of going back on its promises and vowed to do all he could to put a stop to the mast’s erection.

Council officials have also written to the firm, asking for the work to be halted.

Councillor Clarke said: "I’m just disgusted. It’s an issue that could have been resolved and avoided. Residents can be assured that I am doing everything I can to get this work stopped."

Bisbell Magnetic Products Ltd, which had originally turned down O2’s approach to site the mast at its Hillfield Lane premises, subsequently offered to allow the monopole to be built behind its factory — providing an alternative site preferred by the majority of nearby residents.

However, residents feel this option, which would have required O2 to pay rent to Bisbell, has been dismissed in favour of the original site, which appears to be owned by no–one.

Derek Ford, who lives metres from the proposed site and has been suffering from cancer for 10 years, said: "My body is now more susceptible to any other form of cancer and the phone mast is of great concern to us in view of its proximity. The National Radiological Protection Board recognises levels of radiation emissions should be lower for people with compromised health, thereby admitting the level of radiation is dangerous for someone with my condition."

A spokesman for O2 said today that the work had started because it had changed agents to deal with the erection of the mast, and the old agents had not made the new firm aware of the on–going issues."

07 June 2005

Fife Evening Telegraph and Post

Fury as Ice Arena mast gets nod

The Scottish Executive has overturned a Fife Council decision to refuse planning permission for a mobile phone mast on the roof of Fife Ice Arena in Kirkcaldy.

The decision was today branded “a disgrace” by local councillor John Cameron, who vehemently opposed the application when it was considered last September.

He claimed the site was too close to a nursery and a special school for handicapped children, and would cause anxiety within these communities.

But today’s meeting of the Central Development Committee heard that applicants Hutchison 3G had appealed to the Executive, which ruled the Ice Arena was a suitable location.

The Executive reporter also concluded that issues of potential health effects were not a matter for the planning system and should be dealt with under alternative legislation.

A furious Councillor Cameron said, “It beggars belief that the reporter can overturn Fife Council’s decision.

“There is a nursery just 50 yards away from there, the Rosslyn special school is 50 yards away, and there are houses 25 yards away.

“I think it’s a disgrace, especially when there is an industrial estate 400 yards away which would be a more appropriate location.”

He added, “It’s absolutely ridiculous and I’m going to write to the Scottish Executive and MSPs and ask what planet this reporter comes from.”

Hutchison 3G plans to install three pole-mounted antennae and one transmission dish alongside antennae already on the roof.

Council officials had recommended the application be approved because of its limited size.

by Chris Pragnell, South London Press

Jun 7 2005

MOBILE phone firms hope to stick two telecom masts in leafy Dulwich - disguised as Cypress trees.

Only a handful of "tree masts" exist in Britain and these would be South London 's first.

Residents have scoffed at the idea, saying the plastic foliage would look ridiculous - especially in winter.

Yesterday, protesters voiced their concerns at the proposed site for the trees.

It is the Dulwich Estatesowned Pelo playing field off Gallery Road .

Adrian Hill, chairman of the Dulwich Society, said: "The existing trees are deciduous. They'll lose their leaves.

"It will look ridiculous and the plastic foliage will not blend in.

"We think they're in the wrong place.

"They'll be very prominent."

The masts, from telecom companies Orange and Vodafone, could be up to 60ft tall.

As yet, no formal application has been lodged with Southwark council to install them.

Ideal

John Major, chief executive of the Dulwich Estates, defended the proposal, saying the site was ideal.

"The trustees have formulated a policy over the years to work proactively with communications companies," he said.

"That way we have some say about where the masts go.

"The alternative is that they [telecoms companies] could put masts on pavements or public highways - areas outside our control in Dulwich - close to homes, the school, or the library for example.

"This way we can identify sites that are away from homes and away from the school.

"The Pelo site is one of these."

Orange was the first telecom company in the country to introduce masts disguised as trees.

Currently, manufacturers offer two evergreen models - Scots pines and Cypress.

A company spokeswoman said: "If we were to use an English tree such as an oak, the development would look very out of place during the autumn and winter when the real trees shed their leaves."


http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=fake+mobile+phone+mast

Dan Rosenberg is with Public Interest Lawyers.

What follows is self-explanatory - read and enjoy. I will continue a dialogue with Dan and his client, not least in order to ascertain the future career prospects of the inept Wycombe DC officers responsible.

David B



Dear David and Karen

Further to your emails and my conversation with David, I set out very brief details of the case below.

We acted for David Reynolds of Marlow, Bucks. Together with other local residents, he had opposed a 'prior approval' application by T-Mobile for a mast adjacent to his house. 135 residents had signed a petition against the mast, and numerous residents had written in to Wycombe District Council opposing the mast. Approval for the mast was given under delegated powers on 22 October 2004. All local ward councillors had objected to the mast.

We lodged a Judicical Review application just before the 3 month deadline expired in January. We were challenging on three main grounds:

(i) The coverage map submitted on behalf of the applicant was potentially misleading as it failed to show the coverage from another T-Mobile site which had recently obtained planning permission. This had the potential to affect judgments of and suggestions for alternative sites.

(ii) The applicant's agent made an error with regard to the location of a potential site share Orange mast. They gave its grid reference as the farm buildings of the farm whose land it was on. It was actually over the hill from the farm buildings. This obviously affects that potential site as an alternative.

(iii) The local authority did not consult the local school, which was 150 metres from the mast, contrary to PPG 8. The operator had, and the school had not responded. We obtained a witness statement from the headteacher explaining the initial lack of response, and the response she would have made had she been consulted by the local authority. Wycombe DC rather bizarrely tried to explain their lack of consultation with the school by explaining that it was not near to the mast.

Wycombe DC submitted their Grounds of Resistance, but following discussions with T-Mobile's solicitors decided not to continue defending the case.

The final consent order went to the court today. The mast had already been erected, and by the terms of the Order it will not be made operational unless a full (retrospective) planning application is allowed. If the application is rejected, the mast will be removed.

David Reynolds and the other residents now anticipate fighting that further planning application.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can also put Mr. Reynolds in touch with you if you wish.

Kind regards

Dan Rosenberg



From: david baron
Sent: 07 June 2005 19:21
To: Dan Rosenberg
Subject: Phone mast victory: - R (Reynolds) v Wycombe DC

Dear Mr Rosenberg,

By way of introduction, I am a trustee and member of Mast Sanity and have been sent your e-mail exchange with Karen Barratt, our Communications Director, with the request that I respond to you.

As the member of Mast Sanity responsible for advising on planning matters, I am constantly being asked for the contact details of solicitors with expert knowledge in the field. Your firm is, as you will know, on our list and thus we are particularly delighted to hear about your success in having High Wycombe's decision quashed. We are most certainly interested in giving this case the widest possible circulation and accordingly would be most grateful for full details.

Thank you for getting in touch with us and I look forward to hearing from you.

David Baron