editorial@hamhigh.co.uk
Hampstead and Highgate Express
06 January 2006
Matt Eley

HEALTH conscious residents in West Hampstead have launched a campaign against a major mobile phone company.

Orange has submitted plans to Camden Council for a mobile phone mast and base station at the junction of Iverson Road and West End Lane.

But neighbours near the spot have complained that the mast will only be 10 metres away from their bedrooms. They fear it will be noisy, out of keeping with the area and a health risk.

Candice Temple, who lives in the Redcroft flats in Iverson Road, has already collected 150 names on a petition against the plans.

The freelance writer and producer said: "It is going to be so close to people's bedrooms and it will bring the area down as it will be the first thing people see when they get off the train at the Thameslink train station.

"It will also be bad for business being located so close to the shopping area.

"And people are concerned about health risks.

"There was a Vodafone mast put in down the road last year so it feels like an invasion."

Anti-mobile mast campaigners believe radiation from the structures can cause cancer. But the Department of Health and the Mobile Operators Association insist British masts meet international safety standards.

Councillor John Bryant, for West Hampstead, is supporting the campaign against the application.

He said: "It will look pretty awful and it seems that they are carving up the area.

"If the aim is to get them as far away from residential properties as is possible they should be putting it on the railway lands next to the site.

"It seems daft to put it in the busy intersection of West End Lane and Iverson Road."

Camden Council is due to consider the application in the next few weeks.

A spokesman for Orange said: "We understand that there has been a high level of objection to this application, but it is increasingly difficult to find suitable locations for masts, especially in residential areas where the services are needed.

"People should not worry about living or working near this 10 metre mast which will resemble other street furniture in the area; they are safe by design as Orange fully complies with stringent guidelines for public exposure that have been set by government."

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

By Faye Casey
Midlands Express and Star, Birmimngham

Jan 6, 2006

Campaigners in Lichfield are celebrating after controversial plans to install a mobile phone mast in their community were thrown out.

More than 1,600 people had signed a petition objecting to the proposals by the company T-Mobile to install a 14.7 metre high mast on land at Ryknild Street, at the junction with Tamworth Road.

And their fight to stop the mast from being installed ended in victory when Lichfield District Council turned down the scheme because it would be an intrusive feature next to the Green Belt and would harm the views of residents.

The campaign was organised by the Boley Park Action Group, which was formed last year to fight plans by Orange for a mast in Darnford Lane.

The group attracted a wealth of support from the community, and handed over a 1,500 name petition to the council. The Orange mast plan was turned down in February 2005.

Alan Begley, action group spokesman, said everyone was absolutely delighted to hear the T-Mobile mast had also been turned down.

The phone giant claimed the mast was needed to improve mobile phone coverage in the area, but the proposal caused outrage.

The action group had expressed grave concern about the safety of children in the area - at King Edward VI High School and at the playgroup at Boley Park Community Centre- saying they would be at risk from radiation.

"We are delighted and very happy to learn the mast has been turned down," said Mr Begley. "This will protect the park as a utility, the residents of Boley Park and a Grade II listed building within the vicinity.

"Common sense has prevailed.

"Undoubtedly, it is people's letters and the petition that has won the day on this.

"And we got more names on the petition this time - which shows concern against masts is rising."

By Ben Quérée

Jersey Evening Post 05.01.06

CABLE & Wireless are in hot water over an application to place a mobile signal mast on top of St Saviour's Church - without asking the rector.

The Rev Anthony Swindell said the company, who were recently given a licence to launch a mobile phone network in Jersey, had applied to put a mast on top of the church without consulting him or the churchwardens.

An application has been made to remove a flagpole on top of the church tower and replace it with another one that has an antenna inside it.

The first Mr Swindell knew about it was when he received a letter from Planning this morning, which he said made it look as though he had made the application himself.

'They should have consulted us first,' he said. 'They have not got permission from us.'

Firm is sorry for mast mistake

By Ben Quérée Jersey Evening Post 08.01.06

CABLE and Wireless have apologised for applying to install a phone mast on St Saviour's Church without permission and have withdrawn the application.

On Thursday, the Rector of St Saviour, the Rev Anthony Swindell, complained that the firm - recently given a licence to operate a mobile telephone system - had applied to put a mast on the church without consulting him first.

He says the company phoned him to apologise, adding that they would withdraw the application and consult him and the churchwardens before making it again.

Cable and Wireless want to replace an existing flagpole on top of the church tower with another flagpole that has an antenna inside it.

Derbyshire Evening Telegraph

Law firm Freeth Cartwright believes times are changing for mobile phone operators and contractors in the East Midlands - and getting tougher for them to put up masts, nodes and other equipment.

A draft Bill for proposed legislation has been published by the House of Commons called the Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control) Bill which Freeth Cartwright says is of real importance for those with telecoms apparatus on their land or those who have been approached by an operator who wants to place equipment on their land.

It will also be of interest to parties who wish to object to the siting of apparatus in their vicinity, or to landowners who may be considering ways of trying to remove apparatus.

"The Bill is in its early stages and the second reading in the House of Commons is not expected until the end of February," explained Freeth Cartwright associate, Baxter Horton.

"If the Bill becomes law, telecoms operators who apply for planning permission to install apparatus such as a mast or operational ancillary apparatus must supply the planning authority with a 'statement' which is essentially a health warning if it is applicable.

"They must also include a 'certificate' identifying the beam where the greatest exposure to the radio frequency radiation signal is located, and the distance and range of the beam from the apparatus.

"Local planning authorities must make the health warning available for public inspection and indicate how the public may make representations. The planners must then weigh up the health warning and any public representations before deciding whether to grant or refuse planning permission.

"If the beam of greatest intensity falls on land used as an educational or medical facility or any residential property, then the planners must also take into account the 'certificate' information and any public representations before granting or refusing planning permission."

Baxter says this will have a significant impact on operators. "Clearly if the Bill becomes law, operators will need to be much more open and frank in providing information about their sites, and any potential health implications and technical details about the radio frequency signals.

"They will need to obtain fresh planning permission if they wish to replace unserviceable apparatus with equipment of a different type and capacity on an existing site.

"More radical proposals under the Bill may allow owners of educational, nursery or medical facilities to force telecoms operators to give back land compulsorily purchased for use as a telecoms site, or to remove apparatus without having to pay the operator any compensation.

"The legislation may require such establishments to serve 28 days notice to recover their land or remove equipment, and then apply for a county court order.

"If an order is granted, the operator must stop using the equipment and remove it within three months. No details are available as yet on rights of appeal.

"Whilst there is no specific proof that telecoms masts and apparatus are dangerous to health, the Bill is likely to raise the profile of health issues.

Omega there is specific proof that telecoms masts and apparatus are dangerous to health. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

It would also provide that premises used for medical, health-related or educational purposes have a statutory right to seek removal or decommissioning of equipment on their property, even if there is no contractual right in the operator's lease or agreement.

"Potentially this could be an invaluable weapon where bodies such as schools, universities and hospitals are worried about the public perception of radio emissions and radiation and wish to opt out of pre-existing legal agreements."

It is now time to raise awareness of the Telecoms Bill being presented by David Curry MP and due to be given its second reading on 24th February. Be aware that Chris Maile drafted the first Bill taken forward by Richard Spring which was re-presented last year by Andrew Stunell.

As Chris says below, it is imperative to give this second reading the highest possible profile. Please play your part for all our sakes.

A copy of the letter going to all Local Planning Authorities will shortly be posted on this net for info.

David Baron



The Telecom (Curry) Bill info is now ready for distribution, I shall sending out a standard letter to all MPs in the next week as well as sending out the next media release. Mast Sanity has agreed to send out a letter to all LPAs. Copies of all the various docs (please download from the WEB site, they can all be revamped to suit local circumstances) are now on the WEB site which has also been revamped with info on the Council Motions in support of the Bill and the Welsh Assembly motion (similar to the Curry Bill) being taken forward by Plaid AM Janet Davis.

http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/bill2006info.html

Please recirculate this note to all others on your various lists, what we need is for pressure on MPs to be there on the 24th Feb, as well as pressure on local authorities to pass motions/resolutions of support. And revamped media releases from a local perspective to local and regional media (newspapers/radio/tv). It is intended to start increasing the pressure as we get nearer the date, this is intended as a make it or break it approach, this is the third attempt at the same Bill so let us see that it is third time lucky irrespective of the local campaign it is in everyones interests to change the law.

Chris Maile

--------

Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control) Bill
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1380761/

http://www.omega-news.info/prescott_second.doc
http://www.omega-news.info/blair_copy_prescott.doc
http://www.omega-news.info/evidence_of_damage_to_human_health.htm

http://freespace.virgin.net/mast.action/europe.htm

That's Chris Nunn in Bardsey but Roy Ashwood has also taken his case to the EU but not sure what happened in the end.. its been going on for several years. See his site at

http://freespace.virgin.net/mast.action/index.htm

Chris has helped Mast Sanity in the past as one of our phone line advisors and is currently our North East email Coordinator and Roy helped me set Mast Sanity up.

Cheers

Lisa

From: Eileen O'Connor
eileen@smokestackltd.co.uk
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 00:02:07 -0000
Subject: Planning TV disputes programme

Please see enclosed report in Sutton News paper on 30/12/2005

I would like to encourage as many people as possible to phone or e-mail as we want the mast issue on the agenda.


Best wishes

Eileen


Families in planning disputes wanted for TV programme

A television production company working on a BBC series about planning disputes and planning law is looking for people 'in the middle of a planning dispute, or anxiously awaiting a planning decision from the council.'

The series currently being researched by North One Television, aims to follow home and small business owners through the planning process, concentrating on unusual, difficult or contested applications. It is, says the company, 'purely observational and does not attempt to advise or to influence the process in any way'.

Colin Byrne, from North One, said: "Ultimately, we will be looking for case to follow in our pilot episode. At this stage it is just a question of having a chat with people on the phone at a time which is convenient for them, and the conversation remains confidential."

Anyone interested in taking part is asked to get in touch with Colin on 0121 697 1920 or e-mail colin.byrne@northonetv.com .

A decision of the Court of Arches to allow the installation of a phone mast on a church in the West Midlands against the wishes of the chancellor of the Diocese, the community, and the nearby school, has sent shockwaves through communities throughout the UK, many of whom have questioned the moral role and place of the church in the 21st century, and the power and might of commercial corporations to override the rights of ordinary people.

Supreme Church Court overrules local decision

In refusing Quintel permission to erect the phone mast on Emmanuel Church in Bentley (Wolverhampton deanery), Chancellor Shand of Lichfield Diocese abided by the concerns of the school and community on the grounds that the church had a duty to give primacy to its worship and mission, and it would not be permissible for the parish in the face of strong local opposition to permit the installation close to King Charles Primary School. He also said the case raised pastoral issues which outweighed the commercial considerations. The headmistress of the primary school had formally opposed the installation and was supported by the governors.

Quintel and their agent, with the support of two churchwardens, appealed the decision of Chancellor Shand (given in the Consistory Court in Lichfield) to refuse them permission, on the basis that the Chancellor had no duty in law to give primacy to its worship and mission. The Court of Arches overruled Chancellor Shand, thereby granting Quintel permission to erect the phone mast stating that Chancellor Shand misdirected himself and should have only taken into account relevant concerns of the community, and not “merely fanciful ones”.

Mast Sanity Press officer Sian Meredith said, “How dare this Court dismiss peoples’ well founded fears, depth of feeling for a consecrated place and personal beliefs as “Fanciful.” The church is there to care for its flock, to put people first, to love and honour people, to give pastoral care and to nurture. The supreme Court dismissed the community’s fears as fanciful in order to allow business interests and financial gain to woo the church into a partnership of shame. This is outrageous.”

Mr David Baron, Trustee of Mast Sanity said,

“This decision goes against all the moral principles and teachings of the church. In reaching this decision, the Court of Arches is supporting the forceful selling of mobile phones to the youth market with the considerable social, economic and health consequences that this entails – and using consecrated property to do it. We have all seen reports of so-called ‘happy slapping’ whereby groups of children and teenagers use mobile phones to record assaults and then circulate the resulting images by phone and Internet. The practice of children using mobile phones to access gambling and pornography is also well known. Finally, the decision goes against the precautionary principle which Sir William Stewart, Chairman of the Health Protection Agency has consistently recommended over the past five years, particularly to protect children.

“We are talking here about the use of churches for commercial enterprises. In this context, we may care to reflect that Christ sent the money lenders out of the temple of God along with the cheats and people charging too much and acting in their own commercial interests. Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple and overthrew the tables of the money changers and the chairs of them that sold doves and he said to them ‘my house shall be called the house of prayer but you have made it a den of thieves.” (Matthew Ch. 21)

David Baron goes on to say,

“What is also alarming is that the fears of the community ARE based on worldwide evidence of adverse health implications as well as increasing amounts of research showing negative effects and no scientist or Government advisory body has ever said that emissions from masts are safe.

In dismissing years and years of respectable research that make it clear there are serious issues relating to all mobile phone technology, the Court shows clearly the churches new direction in putting financial gain before the health and well being of communities, particularly the weak and vulnerable. This itself is quite counter to the teachings of the New Testament. I doubt that QS4/Quintel would give a written guarantee to the effect that emissions are safe, and they must accept full responsibility for any health effects that emerge.”

ENDS

Contacts:

David Baron - 01243 641583
Sian Meredith - 01225 483284

Useful links:

For general information contact: http://www.mastsanity.org
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2002/4th_quarter/english.html
http://churches.qs4.com/

Notes for Editors

The Court of Arches is the appeal court of the province of Canterbury.

Sitting at the session of the Court of Arches were Rt Worshipful Sheila Cameron QC, the Dean of the Arches, Chancellor Bursell QC and Chancellor Briden.

The appeal by Quintel S4 Ltd (QS4), was supported (in the absence of an incumbent) by Margaret and Anthony Carr, two churchwardens of Emanuel Church, Bentley.

On 18 January, in the Lichfield Consistory Court, Chancellor Shand had refused permission for the installation of mobile-telephone aerials both on the inside and outside of the tower of Emmanuel Church, an unlisted building. Formal objections had been made by Mrs L Ince, chair of governors of the King Charles Primary School, and Susan Machin, the headteacher

The Court of Arches overruled Chancellor Shand’s decision. It said that, although it was true that the primary purpose of a church was the worship of God, there was no reason as a matter of ecclesiastical law why a faculty should not be granted for a wholly secular and commercial use of a part of a church building.

A tangled web

In 2002, the Church of England agreed a contract with QS4, a company in the Quinetiq defence group that was spawned by the privatisation of parts of the MoD, to be the approved installer of telecommunications equipment in church property such as steeples and towers.

Mast Sanity believes this suits the Church of England because it creates revenues, and it suits QS4 because it gives an open field without further planning consents for the erection of the huge number of masts needed to support the new commercial 3G mobile phone infrastructure

In essence, this ruling seems to mean that local Church leaders and communities:

have no rights to decide on the commercial use of their places of worship

have no control over the effects of these developments on the health and well-being of their surrounding communities

have no say on the basis of ethical considerations in the companies allowed to use their property

have no say on the ethical and moral values of transactions passing through their property.