Dec 29, 2005

The Chronicle Stafford and Stone, W Midlands

A mobile phone company has vowed to appeal against a decision to block a 12-month extension of planning permission for their temporary mast.

Hutchison 3G, which trades as 3, has had the rig and 15-metre high mast on land at Holme Farm, in Creswell, for a year.

Corporate affairs manager Verity Stanford, said: "We will be appealing - this is because the reasons that the planning inspectorate originally gave for the granting of approval back in 2004 still stand.

"That decision was based on the fact that there is clearly a need for coverage in the area.

"In the meantime, we will be looking at permanent options in the area."

The mast was intended to be temporary while Hutchison 3G looked for a permanent solution in the area.

One of the options is a new mast approximately 40 metres away from the current temporary one, which would mean three masts in the area.

Alternatively, they would wish to build a five metre extension onto an existing O2 mast, bringing it to 20 metres.

Hutchison 3G received planning permission for the second option in April 2002.

The request for another 12-months for the temporary mast was booted out by Stafford Borough Council planning committee members at their recent meeting amid claims that it was visually intrusive to the surrounding village and non-compliant with Government policy.

Creswell Parish Council also objected to the plan claiming that even though the initial application was temporary until a permanent mast was installed, two other masts have have been built at the site.

It said that over the last 12 months four residents within 400 metres of the three masts had developed cancer.

This was in addition to 10 people who contracted the disease in the effective transmission range of one kilometre from masts over the past four years.

Residents in Creswell have also lodged objections with the borough council, asking for the site to blacklisted from any further mobile mast applications and saying that the retention of the temporary mast would contravene Government guidelines on sharing.

Councillor for Seighford ward - where Holme Farm is situated - Ray Sutherland said: "The thing that concerns me is the proliferation.

"What is it that these mast companies have against Creswell? Why are these companies not sharing other masts?"

http://www.expressandstar.com/articles/news/chronicles/stafford/article_84971.php

by Gazette reporter,
Ryedale, Yorkshire

CONCERNED residents are to meet with phone company bosses to discuss a controversial new mast in the centre of their village.

Orange at first refused to talk to villagers in Sheriff Hutton about the phone mast on Dasket Hill, but the company has now agreed to a meeting on January 6.

More than 130 residents turned out to protest after the mast appeared one quiet Sunday morning, despite both the parish council and Ryedale District Council opposing the plans.

It became clear that two administrative errors by Ryedale District Council led to the objections being sent to the phone company a day late.

Council bosses have apologised for the errors, and development control manager Gary Housden said he would take legal advice as to whether the council has any enforcement power over Orange to take it down.

He said the fact that the company did not place notification of plans on the site could render its application void, and he would know for certain by December 21.

Until then, residents say they are "in limbo".

Andrew Murphy, who lives with his family 85 metres away from the mast in Cornborough Road, spotted engineers there on December 3, and stopped them connecting the mast to an electricity supplier.

"I told them the site was still the subject of a legal review and that no work should be done until that was resolved," he said.

"They rang their boss and he said they had to get on with it, but then I said I would get the press involved and they left."

Mr Murphy wrote to Orange and negotiated the meeting on January 6, and was assured no more work would go on at the site until that meeting.

Mr Murphy's wife, Linda, said: "I'm very much heartened that they are at last prepared to meet us and listen.

``However, I'm not getting too optimistic.

``Our aim is to get it removed and, once it is, we will celebrate.

``But it's great that we can relax over Christmas and not be on a constant lookout to see if they are doing something."

At the meeting, villagers will show the Orange bosses alternative sites for the mast, including one industrial park and three spots where landowners are willing to have the mast.

"They are all away from homes, and that's what we want," said Mrs Murphy. "We don't want to make it someone else's problem."

Orange spokesman Duncan McGraw said: "Orange has agreed to meet with up to four residents and we are waiting to hear confirmation of that. We want to meet with them and listen to their concerns because lots of information has been published about the issue and we need to get to the bottom of these concerns.

"From our point of view as a company, we have legitimate planning consent for this site and we're keen to build this mast to improve mobile phone coverage in the area."

Updated: 14:11 Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Latest from WHO on EHS:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/print.html

‘Electromagnetic fields and public health; Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity’.

Note the advice on limiting exposure differs from that from Jill Meara at the Health Protection Agency, in saying if the kitchen is too hot, stay there: just think cool.

Echoes from recent WHO advice not to measure EMFs because the worry might make it worse.

Which itself is an interesting observation, since EMFs as a biological stressor are what it's all about. Worry might indeed make EHS worse, by the same route that EMFs cause it.

And see how definitive the Rubin and Wessely paper (American Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine) is becoming in refuting any connection between EMF and EHS.

And so the inexorable march of Ideopathic Environmental Intolerance (IEI), in which the soaring modern dis-eases are apparently none of our own making. While we pollute and destroy our environment, indeed our planet, we are supposed to feel good again, with a pill and a bit of cognitive behavioural therapy.

Andy

--------

WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1194586/

Argentina:

http://www.temperleyweb.com.ar/ii20050808-antena.htm
http://www.ducba.com.ar/ (article 12-09-05)
http://www.temperleyweb.com.ar/ii20050228-antena.htm
http://www.launion.com.ar/251111/251111loc01lz.htm
http://www.launion.com.ar/250808/250808loc03lz.htm


Mexico:

http://www.cambiodemichoacan.com.mx/vernota.php?id=34861
http://www.cambiodemichoacan.com.mx/vernota.php?id=34932



From Frans:


Spain:

http://www.lajornadamichoacan.com.mx/2005/12/07/12n1mun.html
http://www.cambiodemichoacan.com.mx/vernota.php?id=34861

Argentina:
http://www.temperleyweb.com.ar/ii20050808-antena.htm

(Google and Babelfish can both do approximate translations)

For those who remember, this club, with about 8 masts already on the site, agreed to allow Airwave to add 6 TETRA antennas to the original 3 antennas, as well, if planning permission was granted. With Mast Sanity's advice and support, Jill Harland roused the locals and the council turned down the planning application. In June 05 Airwave appealed.

Jill and Mast Sanity gave it their best shot against all odds....................the appeal was REFUSED!


Appeal Decision

Appeal reference:app/N4720/A/05/1185025

Existing Airwave tower, Yorkshire AFC, Roxholme Road, Leeds LS8 4DZ

The appeal is made by Airwave/02 (UK) Ltd against the decision of the Leeds City council. The application Ref 34/107/05/FU, dated 8th March 05 was refused by notice dated 3rd May 05

The development proposed is the replacement of existing 17.5m monopole with a 25m lattice tower to accommodate existing Airwave antennas, six 02 antennas and one 0.3m transmission dish with associated radio cabinet housing and ancillary development at ground level.

Conclusions

15. Notwithstanding my conclusion on the third issue, I conclude that the proposal is unacceptable by reason of its visual impact. My inclusion is strengthened by my view that the evidence regarding consideration of alternative sites is unsatisfactory. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Formal Decision

16. I do dismiss the appeal.

This was the big fish that didn't get away with it!


News on Leicester's Elizabeth House. For those who missed details of this there are at least 14 masts on the roof this block plus several large cabinets, and at least two TETRA masts nearby. There is ill health from the 15th (top ) floor right down to the 3rd floor.

The council refused an application for a 6 antenna 02 mast but 02 appealed.

So far no appeal decision is forthcoming. You wonder if there is a huge backlog. However, Orange and T-Mobile have both upgraded to add 3G to existing masts while the council insisted that no planning permission was required. The end result is that Phil Hendy is now extremely ill and his doctor has written a letter stating that he should be moved from the block because his health is being seriously affected. The housing association who own the block are refusing to move him and Phil is unable to walk or do much to help himself. The local MP is supposedly helping him. I have not heard of any progress.

Phil has not been able to make contact to say whether others are worse in the block, or not, so I cannot update you on them.

This is just one tragedy playing out. How many more are there?

Sandi

Haverhill Today

Haverhill's MP Richard Spring is continuing the fight against the Hazel Stub roundabout phone mast.

Mr Spring has written strong letters of protest to both the deputy prime minister John Prescott and to Bob Fuller, chief executive of Hutchinson 3G UK Limited.

He told Mr Fuller in a strong letter that he felt Hutchinson 3G had 'ridden roughshod over the views of the local community, the local authority and myself' – he also told the deputy PM that the time for personal action was now clearly overdue.

Mr Spring also felt that Hutchinson had ignored the mobile phone network development code of best practice on more than one occasion.

He said: "I remain extremely anxious about the potential health and environment impact of such an installation on my constituents.

He added: "The local community has been united in opposing this with a petition, letters, rallies as well as a letter appealing to the company's chief executive, asking him to consider an alternative location.

"Disgracefully, Hutchinson 3G has been able to ride roughshod over the views of local people."

09 December 2005

Rochdale Observer

Published: 9th December 2005

TOWN Hall bosses have been urged to review all mobile masts on their property – by the leader of the council’s largest party.

In what could spark a row between council planners and councillors, Liberal Democrat leader, Councillor Alan Taylor, says health fears should always be addressed whenever decisions are made on the siting of masts.

But this is in direct contrast to what the council’s own planning officers tell councillors on the planning committee.

They have pointed out that it is the Goverment’s firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards.

The government has also told planning chiefs that if a proposed mobile phone base station met the international guidelines on exposing the public to radiation, it should not be necessary for a local planning authority to consider further the health aspects of any particular application.

Currently, there are 21 council-owned sites with mobile masts.

The lifetime of the masts range from five years to 21 years. The sites include schools, council premises, offices, the flats at College Bank and even the Black Box.

Councillor Taylor says the issue, ‘quite rightly’, has provoked a massive increase in the size of councillors’ postbags whenever an application for a mast is proposed in their ward.

He continued: "I think that Rochdale Council should be harder on applicants.

"When a mobile phone operator applies for permission to erect a mast, especially on council land, we should be rigorous in making sure that local people, or those working day-in, day-out near the site, are borne in mind.

"The council needs to send a clear message to mobile phone operators that it will closely scrutinise their work with a series of checks and balances that should always put public safety at the forefront of the public’s mind.

"I appreciate that mobile phones are a huge part of people’s social and business lives, but we should always have the safety of the public in mind."

Councillor Taylor’s comments come in the wake of the recent approval given to the siting of a mast near a Castleton primary school and another above Syke community base, despite widespread public opposition.

He’s asked Paul Rowen, the Rochdale MP, to query the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about mobile phone masts.

He said: "Currently, councils are advised that they need to look at issues such as the appearance or siting of a particular mast. They are advised by the government not to take into account any of the health issues associated with such masts. I think this is fundamentally wrong.

"I have been contacted by dozens of residents about mobile phone masts and their concerns simply cannot be addressed the current process."

Planning committee chairman, Zulfiqar Ali, who is also a Liberal Democrat, said Councillor Taylor should know it is not the council that makes planning policy, but central government.

"This makes it very difficult for us. If Councillor Taylor can come up with independent evidence that mobile phone masts pose a health risk then I’ll be happy to go along with him.

"But until then, our hands are tied."

Independent evidence that mobile phone masts pose a health risk 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

Action Scotland
BBC Radio Scotland
Date: Friday 16th December 2005
Time: 11:05 AM to 11:30 AM
Duration: 25 minutes.

Series highlighting campaigns and issues in Scotland. This week Phil Goodland follows a North Ayrshire community's campaign to prevent a phone mast being built next door to an award winning primary school.

Repeated 6:00AM Saturday 17th December 2005

Programme Webpage:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/radioscotland/view/show.shtml?action_scotland

Listen Again link (available after broadcast)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radioscotland_aod.shtml?scotland/feature1_sat or rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/scotland/radioscotland/demand/dailyfeature/rs_feature1_sat.rm

(bypasses BBC's dreadful player, and uses Real Audio Player if already installed on your PC).

West Midlands & Stafford Express and Star

Dec 7, 2005

Religious leaders have rejected concerns about the health of Black Country schoolchildren to allow a mobile phone mast to be set up.

The Ancient Arches Court of Canterbury has overturned a ruling that blocked plans by Emmanuel Church, Walsall, to allow a mast to be installed in its tower.

It is believed the church will earn around £6,000 a year in rent by allowing communication companies to place masts in or on its tower. The ruling follows a near 18-month campaign by nearby schools King Charles Primary and Bentley West Primary.

Staff and parents objected on the grounds the mast could damage the health of youngsters.

The case for and against was put to the country's top ecclesiastical court at a one-day hearing in September.

The decision has just been revealed.

--------

Churches and Cell Towers
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1296809/

This is the North East

08.12.05

ALMOST 200 people have objected to plans for a 52ft mobile phone mast at the entrance to a town.

Objectors say the controversial plan has galvanised residents into action because it would ruin an attractive view of Masham, near Ripon.

Mobile phone company Airwave MM02 has applied to Harrogate Borough Council for planning permission for the mast.

A decision will be made by the council's head of planning services, Tim Richards, and planning committee chairman Councillor Nigel Simms, who represents Masham on the council.

The decision will be made on December 19 and the deadline for objections is tomorrow. Nearly 200 objections have been received by Masham Community Office, which is co-ordinating responses and sending them to the borough council.

Masham Parish Council vice-chairwoman Flo Grainger said: "I am very pleased and surprised by the numbers of objections.

"The mast plan has brought so many objections because it would have a widespread impact and ruin the view of Masham."

The company, which said the mast was needed to improve police communications, plans to site it on a grass verge near Low Burton Hall, at the junction of the B6267 and A6108, from Bedale and Ripon.

Councillor Grainger said campaigners against the mast had been boosted by news that the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Beauty administration plans to object.

Apart from the mast's impact, residents are also concerned that the planned site is at an accident blackspot and on a gateway to the Yorkshire Dales.

Masham Parish Council has tabled a strong protest.

Its chairman, Councillor Andy Burrell, said: "This is not the place for a mobile phone mast.

"We could not object more strongly to this unwanted plan."

--------

This is yet another TETRA addition after O2 Airwave's V-P declared early this year that no more masts were needed (for police or any other service user yet to take it up) in support of the Firelink bid.

One objection to this mast might be to prove that it is needed, in the light of O2 Airwave's public statement that it would not be needed.

Andy

--------

Thanks for this Andy.

Next question: what happens to the much-publicised high-security encryption claimed for Airwave - so that people can't eavesdrop on confidential police communications?

This article makes it very clear that highly confidential information from the Police National Computer, as well as confidential emails, will be going over the ordinary public network. So what about all that concern for security that made Airwave so essential???

The whole thing is an utter (black) farce. If the Airwave contract had been awarded by a private company, rather than an arm of government, heads would be rolling at the very highest level in the boardrooms of that company. But since in this case we, the public, are the 'shareholders' of UK PLC, who's going to care?

I think it would be naive to rule out some sort of hidden agenda - there are more surprises in store yet (for those of us who haven't gone beyond being surprised by anything about this fiasco).

Grahame

--------

And what's more, reviewing what Rohill is saying about TETRA in Germany, Spain and Netherlands, they are waiting for TETRA standard 2 in order to provide end-to-end encryption. Either they are wrong, or Airwave is not fully end-to-end as stated and believed by our police forces.

Andy

--------

... And I recall reading in an earlier 'Computing' article that many (probably most) of the handsets currently in use will not support TETRA Standard 2, and will therefore need replacing. And I doubt that Airwave handsets are given away free with the coco-pops.

The beat goes on ...

Grahame