PROTEST: Parents' fury over phone mast plans
Starmail - 26. Mär, 11:55
Tetra Masts News from Mast Network
26
Mrz
2005
25
Mrz
2005
Plea to include phone masts
Northwich Guardian
THE chairman of a group fighting against mobile phone communication masts being put up is asking Vale Royal Borough Council if the potential effects of masts will form part of the leukaemia investigation.
Dennis Cannon is chairman of Together Against Masts, which has more than 4,000 members in east Lancashire.
He said: "I have heard of similar cases where exposure to the microwave radiation from mobile phone masts has caused cancer.
"I have been trying to speak to Vale Royal Borough Council to discover whether there is a phone or emergency service Tetra mast near to the housing estate.
"The operators would then be obliged to provide information as to where the waves of greatest intensity strike the ground."
He added: "If anyone is concerned, they can ring me on 01282 771635."
From Mast Network
THE chairman of a group fighting against mobile phone communication masts being put up is asking Vale Royal Borough Council if the potential effects of masts will form part of the leukaemia investigation.
Dennis Cannon is chairman of Together Against Masts, which has more than 4,000 members in east Lancashire.
He said: "I have heard of similar cases where exposure to the microwave radiation from mobile phone masts has caused cancer.
"I have been trying to speak to Vale Royal Borough Council to discover whether there is a phone or emergency service Tetra mast near to the housing estate.
"The operators would then be obliged to provide information as to where the waves of greatest intensity strike the ground."
He added: "If anyone is concerned, they can ring me on 01282 771635."
From Mast Network
Starmail - 25. Mär, 12:07
Parents oppose plans for more masts
Mar 24 2005
By The Journal
Parents are battling plans for a further three mobile phone antennas near their children's primary school - taking the total within 50 metres up to six.
More than 200 parents and teachers turned out yesterday in a show of anger against the proposal for more masts overlooking Kells Lane Primary, in Low Fell, Gateshead.
The school's playground is already just 49 metres from two mobile phone towers, spiked on top of a British Telecom building on nearby Clement Street.
Stephen Aspinall, 48, whose six-year-old daughter Collette attends the school, said parents fear the masts could cause their children health problems in the future.
He said: "My daughter is at the school and knowing there were already two mobile phone masts nearby has always been in the back of my mind.
"But two weeks ago we were sent a letter from the council saying an application was in for another three masts at the same site."
More than 100 parents have already signed a petition against the masts, with some sending letters of objection to Gateshead Council's planning committee which is set to make a decision on the application on Wednesday.
Mr Aspinall, who is a governor at Kells Lane, said: "The school is in a conservation area, and when we needed to replace some windows we had to stick to strict rules, so how can they just stick masts on to the top of buildings.
"It looks like one rule for some, and another when it comes to this."
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/thejournal/tm_objectid=15329090%26method=full%26siteid=50081-name_page.html
From Mast Network
By The Journal
Parents are battling plans for a further three mobile phone antennas near their children's primary school - taking the total within 50 metres up to six.
More than 200 parents and teachers turned out yesterday in a show of anger against the proposal for more masts overlooking Kells Lane Primary, in Low Fell, Gateshead.
The school's playground is already just 49 metres from two mobile phone towers, spiked on top of a British Telecom building on nearby Clement Street.
Stephen Aspinall, 48, whose six-year-old daughter Collette attends the school, said parents fear the masts could cause their children health problems in the future.
He said: "My daughter is at the school and knowing there were already two mobile phone masts nearby has always been in the back of my mind.
"But two weeks ago we were sent a letter from the council saying an application was in for another three masts at the same site."
More than 100 parents have already signed a petition against the masts, with some sending letters of objection to Gateshead Council's planning committee which is set to make a decision on the application on Wednesday.
Mr Aspinall, who is a governor at Kells Lane, said: "The school is in a conservation area, and when we needed to replace some windows we had to stick to strict rules, so how can they just stick masts on to the top of buildings.
"It looks like one rule for some, and another when it comes to this."
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/thejournal/tm_objectid=15329090%26method=full%26siteid=50081-name_page.html
From Mast Network
Starmail - 25. Mär, 11:56
MOBILE MEASURES
While parents in Muswell Hill call for mobile phone masts to be banned from residential areas, SHYAMTARA NI FHOGHLU investigates how dangerous the radiation we are exposed to in order to use our phones actually is
Six months ago Sarah Purdy used her mobile phone without giving it a thought, and never wondered how she got such good reception in Muswell Hill.
Then in January this year Vodafone was granted planning permission to install up to six mobile phone antennae on the roof of the BT telephone exchange in Grand Avenue, just 260 metres away from where two of her children go to primary school.
And it wasn't until staff at Tetherdown Primary School told Ms Purdy about the plans, that she had any idea how many mobile phone masts there are in the area, so she started questioning the possible health risks they pose.
Now the thought that her own children could be in harm's way has motivated her to demand Haringey Council adopt a precautionary principle not to grant permission for masts near schools, hospitals or residential areas. She even wants the council to re-site existing masts.
But the parents' protest in Muswell Hill has highlighted a major conundrum: no one wants their children to be near mobile phone antennae, but realistically, how many of us would give up using our mobile phones?
Jane Frapwell, EMF (Electro-Magnetic Field) adviser for Vodafone, said mobile antennae operate at a very low power hundreds of times below international guidelines so there needs to be more of them to supply adequate coverage to ensure phone users get good reception.
She said: "In a city you're going to have more installations because of usage the more people who use mobile phones, the more capacity you need.
"The only health and safety issue is the area directly in front of the antenna. That area we would not want the public to have unrestricted access to. We do take people's concerns seriously. It really is a difficult balance how can we provide a service without affecting the community?"
According to estimates from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) there are about 40,000 base stations, or masts, in the UK, and another 10,000 are expected with the advent of 3G services. It also states mobile phone usage has doubled from 25 million in 2000 to 50 million this year.
A quick search on the Office of Communications sitefinder website shows at least 25 base stations dotted around Muswell Hill, Highgate, Hornsey, Alexandra Palace and Crouch End. But it only shows mobile phone masts. There are also TETRA transmitters for the police radio system, and radio and TV transmitters in the area.
To give an idea of their strength, the TV transmitter at Crystal Palace which has been in operation since the 1930s is 4,500 kW. The digital radio transmitter at Alexandra Palace is 3.2 kW, and a standard mobile phone antenna is about 1.8 kW.
Dr Michael Clark, scientific spokesman for NRPB, made the analogy that radio and TV transmitters are like one big floodlight, whereas mobile phone masts are 60 watt bulbs dotted everywhere to get the same coverage.
The NRPB stated in its Mobile Phones and Health Report 2004 that the extensive use of mobile phones suggests that users do not in general judge them to present a significant risk. Nevertheless, since their introduction, there have been persisting concerns about the possible impact of mobile phone technologies on health'.
There are concerns that emissions from phones, and masts could affect brain function, particularly in children, and it has been linked with symptoms such as insomnia, dizziness, nausea, migraines, tumours and leukaemia.
Dr Clark said: "I just can't believe they are all caused by mobile phone masts. People are beginning to blame a multitude of symptoms on mobile phones."
But he said if mobile phones and masts caused just one or two of the symptoms, then research had to be done.
"We do feel that the issue of research is concentrated on the handset issue, because that's the greatest concentration. On the phone, the level of exposure is 10,000 times more than that of standing close to a mast. From the public concern point of view it's clearly the other way around."
One project underway is the development of a personal exposure meter, a device a person can wear which will measure emissions from radio signals.
Volunteers will be asked to wear the device for about a week and keep a diary of what they are doing and where they are, allowing researchers to measure exactly what they are being exposed to.
There is also a UK study investigating whether pulsed signals have more effect than continuous signals.
Another study is looking at whether living close to base stations affects cancer in children, and there are three studies to see if the use of mobile phones can affect the risk of developing leukaemia.
Dr Clark remains convinced that if there was a significant health risk from masts, it would have been very evident by now.
But Ms Purdy insisted: "They have the same property as all radiation, and other radiations cause cancer. These are the effects that need to be researched."
On Monday night, Ms Purdy gave a speech to Haringey's full council meeting outlining the concerns of the group at Muswell Hill.
A motion was put forward by the Liberal Democrats to change planning regulations regarding mobile phone antennae, and it will be debated at the next full council meeting in June.
The council also promised to hold an in depth review of mobile phone masts next year.
Vodafone has agreed not to activate the masts at the Grand Avenue site until a meeting is held with residents on April 6.
1:30pm Thursday 24th March 2005
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/indepth/features/display.var.582322.0.mobile_measures.php
From Mast Network
Six months ago Sarah Purdy used her mobile phone without giving it a thought, and never wondered how she got such good reception in Muswell Hill.
Then in January this year Vodafone was granted planning permission to install up to six mobile phone antennae on the roof of the BT telephone exchange in Grand Avenue, just 260 metres away from where two of her children go to primary school.
And it wasn't until staff at Tetherdown Primary School told Ms Purdy about the plans, that she had any idea how many mobile phone masts there are in the area, so she started questioning the possible health risks they pose.
Now the thought that her own children could be in harm's way has motivated her to demand Haringey Council adopt a precautionary principle not to grant permission for masts near schools, hospitals or residential areas. She even wants the council to re-site existing masts.
But the parents' protest in Muswell Hill has highlighted a major conundrum: no one wants their children to be near mobile phone antennae, but realistically, how many of us would give up using our mobile phones?
Jane Frapwell, EMF (Electro-Magnetic Field) adviser for Vodafone, said mobile antennae operate at a very low power hundreds of times below international guidelines so there needs to be more of them to supply adequate coverage to ensure phone users get good reception.
She said: "In a city you're going to have more installations because of usage the more people who use mobile phones, the more capacity you need.
"The only health and safety issue is the area directly in front of the antenna. That area we would not want the public to have unrestricted access to. We do take people's concerns seriously. It really is a difficult balance how can we provide a service without affecting the community?"
According to estimates from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) there are about 40,000 base stations, or masts, in the UK, and another 10,000 are expected with the advent of 3G services. It also states mobile phone usage has doubled from 25 million in 2000 to 50 million this year.
A quick search on the Office of Communications sitefinder website shows at least 25 base stations dotted around Muswell Hill, Highgate, Hornsey, Alexandra Palace and Crouch End. But it only shows mobile phone masts. There are also TETRA transmitters for the police radio system, and radio and TV transmitters in the area.
To give an idea of their strength, the TV transmitter at Crystal Palace which has been in operation since the 1930s is 4,500 kW. The digital radio transmitter at Alexandra Palace is 3.2 kW, and a standard mobile phone antenna is about 1.8 kW.
Dr Michael Clark, scientific spokesman for NRPB, made the analogy that radio and TV transmitters are like one big floodlight, whereas mobile phone masts are 60 watt bulbs dotted everywhere to get the same coverage.
The NRPB stated in its Mobile Phones and Health Report 2004 that the extensive use of mobile phones suggests that users do not in general judge them to present a significant risk. Nevertheless, since their introduction, there have been persisting concerns about the possible impact of mobile phone technologies on health'.
There are concerns that emissions from phones, and masts could affect brain function, particularly in children, and it has been linked with symptoms such as insomnia, dizziness, nausea, migraines, tumours and leukaemia.
Dr Clark said: "I just can't believe they are all caused by mobile phone masts. People are beginning to blame a multitude of symptoms on mobile phones."
But he said if mobile phones and masts caused just one or two of the symptoms, then research had to be done.
"We do feel that the issue of research is concentrated on the handset issue, because that's the greatest concentration. On the phone, the level of exposure is 10,000 times more than that of standing close to a mast. From the public concern point of view it's clearly the other way around."
One project underway is the development of a personal exposure meter, a device a person can wear which will measure emissions from radio signals.
Volunteers will be asked to wear the device for about a week and keep a diary of what they are doing and where they are, allowing researchers to measure exactly what they are being exposed to.
There is also a UK study investigating whether pulsed signals have more effect than continuous signals.
Another study is looking at whether living close to base stations affects cancer in children, and there are three studies to see if the use of mobile phones can affect the risk of developing leukaemia.
Dr Clark remains convinced that if there was a significant health risk from masts, it would have been very evident by now.
But Ms Purdy insisted: "They have the same property as all radiation, and other radiations cause cancer. These are the effects that need to be researched."
On Monday night, Ms Purdy gave a speech to Haringey's full council meeting outlining the concerns of the group at Muswell Hill.
A motion was put forward by the Liberal Democrats to change planning regulations regarding mobile phone antennae, and it will be debated at the next full council meeting in June.
The council also promised to hold an in depth review of mobile phone masts next year.
Vodafone has agreed not to activate the masts at the Grand Avenue site until a meeting is held with residents on April 6.
1:30pm Thursday 24th March 2005
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/indepth/features/display.var.582322.0.mobile_measures.php
From Mast Network
Starmail - 25. Mär, 11:47
23
Mrz
2005
22
Mrz
2005
“THE FIGHT GOES ON!” SAY WINCHESTER PHONE MAST CAMPAIGNERS
Press release. 22 March 2005
“THE FIGHT GOES ON!” SAY WINCHESTER PHONE MAST CAMPAIGNERS
News that the House of Lords has refused to hear the Byron Avenue phone mast case has left campaigners disappointed but not crushed. “We’ve had so many ups and downs in the four years we’ve been fighting that nothing surprises us any longer,” says Karen Barratt. “ We’re certainly not giving up.”
After the disappointment of December’s Appeal Court judgement, mothers Caroline St. Leger Davey and Diane Harrison applied in January to continue their legal battle in the Lords on behalf of their children; Phoebe St.Leger Davey and James Harrison both attend Western Primary School, which is situated close to the site of the proposed Orange mast. Caroline and Diane will now be discussing the Lords decision with their legal team.
It is too early to say whether the next step might be the European Court but Orange has given an undertaking to MP Mark Oaten not to erect the mast until campaigners have exhausted all their options. In any case the company originally said they would not disturb the birds nesting in the trees on the site, which means waiting until August. The drama of Byron Avenue looks set to continue.
CONTACTS
Karen Barratt: 01962 864388
Caroline St.Leger Davey: 01962 865716
BACKGROUND
Orange originally applied to erect the 11.79 metre monopole in Byron Avenue, Winchester in December 2000 and was given the go-ahead by a local planning officer as full planning permission for masts under 15 metres is not required.
The unprecedented level of protest among outraged residents and parents with children at the school prompted marches, public meetings and a deluge of letters to local and national government departments. Local MP Mark Oaten gave the campaign his wholehearted support and made repeated attempts to persuade Orange to find an alternative site. Eventually local parents took legal action and Winchester City Council (WCC) was forced to reconsider the decision after the High Court gave permission for a judicial review on the grounds that concerns about health had not been considered. At the re-determination in March 2002, this time by the full Planning Committee, Orange’s application was rejected.
Community celebrations were short-lived, however, as two months later Orange lodged an appeal against WCC’s decision. The public inquiry, for which local people raised £20,000 for their own legal representation, started in November 2002, lasted for nine days with three adjournments, eventually finishing in July 2003. A few weeks later, Planning Inspector, Martin Pike issued his decision against the council, in Orange’s favour.
WCC refused to challenge the decision even though costs were awarded against them. Two local mothers, Caroline St.Leger Davey and Diane Harrison took up the challenge and went to the High Court in March this year in an attempt to overturn the Planning Inspector’s decision. Although unsuccessful on that occasion they were given a second chance and returned to court on 11 November in an attempt to overturn the judgment. The decision rejecting the appeal was issued on 1 December 2004. The application to the House of Lords was made in January.
END
From Mast Network
“THE FIGHT GOES ON!” SAY WINCHESTER PHONE MAST CAMPAIGNERS
News that the House of Lords has refused to hear the Byron Avenue phone mast case has left campaigners disappointed but not crushed. “We’ve had so many ups and downs in the four years we’ve been fighting that nothing surprises us any longer,” says Karen Barratt. “ We’re certainly not giving up.”
After the disappointment of December’s Appeal Court judgement, mothers Caroline St. Leger Davey and Diane Harrison applied in January to continue their legal battle in the Lords on behalf of their children; Phoebe St.Leger Davey and James Harrison both attend Western Primary School, which is situated close to the site of the proposed Orange mast. Caroline and Diane will now be discussing the Lords decision with their legal team.
It is too early to say whether the next step might be the European Court but Orange has given an undertaking to MP Mark Oaten not to erect the mast until campaigners have exhausted all their options. In any case the company originally said they would not disturb the birds nesting in the trees on the site, which means waiting until August. The drama of Byron Avenue looks set to continue.
CONTACTS
Karen Barratt: 01962 864388
Caroline St.Leger Davey: 01962 865716
BACKGROUND
Orange originally applied to erect the 11.79 metre monopole in Byron Avenue, Winchester in December 2000 and was given the go-ahead by a local planning officer as full planning permission for masts under 15 metres is not required.
The unprecedented level of protest among outraged residents and parents with children at the school prompted marches, public meetings and a deluge of letters to local and national government departments. Local MP Mark Oaten gave the campaign his wholehearted support and made repeated attempts to persuade Orange to find an alternative site. Eventually local parents took legal action and Winchester City Council (WCC) was forced to reconsider the decision after the High Court gave permission for a judicial review on the grounds that concerns about health had not been considered. At the re-determination in March 2002, this time by the full Planning Committee, Orange’s application was rejected.
Community celebrations were short-lived, however, as two months later Orange lodged an appeal against WCC’s decision. The public inquiry, for which local people raised £20,000 for their own legal representation, started in November 2002, lasted for nine days with three adjournments, eventually finishing in July 2003. A few weeks later, Planning Inspector, Martin Pike issued his decision against the council, in Orange’s favour.
WCC refused to challenge the decision even though costs were awarded against them. Two local mothers, Caroline St.Leger Davey and Diane Harrison took up the challenge and went to the High Court in March this year in an attempt to overturn the Planning Inspector’s decision. Although unsuccessful on that occasion they were given a second chance and returned to court on 11 November in an attempt to overturn the judgment. The decision rejecting the appeal was issued on 1 December 2004. The application to the House of Lords was made in January.
END
From Mast Network
Starmail - 22. Mär, 22:40
Victory in fight to stop mast
BY BOB BEALE B.BEALE
11:00 - 21 March 2005
Campaigners in St Werburghs have won their fight to stop a mobile phone mast being built on their doorstep. Brymain Investments Limited, which owns the proposed site at Minto Road Trading Estate, has written to campaign leader Reuben Woods to say it is withdrawing from its proposed agreement with phone operators T-Mobile to allow a 39ft mast to be built on the site.
Property manager John Turner wrote: "Whether or not the concerns of local residents are scientifically justifiable is not material to this decision.
"The objectors are sincere in their concerns and the directors have now decided that they wish to be 'good neighbours' and not the cause of fear and anxiety to people in the nearby community."
The St Werburghs Collective - 20 residents who live close to the proposed site of the mast - wrote to Brymain saying grave concerns about the health risk forced many of them to consider moving house.
The letter also threatened legal action if any of then suffered a drop in the value of their homes or ill health.
The withdrawal is also in response to meetings between the residents and the company.
Mr Woods said: "Our community is delighted with this decision.
"We feel that a blanket of fear has been lifted from St Werburghs and we would like to thank the directors of Brymain Investments for acknowledging our concerns.
"We will continue to fight any further proposals to build a mast in our area and will be keeping an eye open for any public notice of applications to obtain planning permission."
But it seems that the victory may be short-lived.
T Mobile spokesman David Hanney said: "We are naturally disappointed at this turn of events.
"However we still need to acquire a site in this area and will continue with our search for an alternative to upgrade our network."
http://tinyurl.com/49lne
11:00 - 21 March 2005
Campaigners in St Werburghs have won their fight to stop a mobile phone mast being built on their doorstep. Brymain Investments Limited, which owns the proposed site at Minto Road Trading Estate, has written to campaign leader Reuben Woods to say it is withdrawing from its proposed agreement with phone operators T-Mobile to allow a 39ft mast to be built on the site.
Property manager John Turner wrote: "Whether or not the concerns of local residents are scientifically justifiable is not material to this decision.
"The objectors are sincere in their concerns and the directors have now decided that they wish to be 'good neighbours' and not the cause of fear and anxiety to people in the nearby community."
The St Werburghs Collective - 20 residents who live close to the proposed site of the mast - wrote to Brymain saying grave concerns about the health risk forced many of them to consider moving house.
The letter also threatened legal action if any of then suffered a drop in the value of their homes or ill health.
The withdrawal is also in response to meetings between the residents and the company.
Mr Woods said: "Our community is delighted with this decision.
"We feel that a blanket of fear has been lifted from St Werburghs and we would like to thank the directors of Brymain Investments for acknowledging our concerns.
"We will continue to fight any further proposals to build a mast in our area and will be keeping an eye open for any public notice of applications to obtain planning permission."
But it seems that the victory may be short-lived.
T Mobile spokesman David Hanney said: "We are naturally disappointed at this turn of events.
"However we still need to acquire a site in this area and will continue with our search for an alternative to upgrade our network."
http://tinyurl.com/49lne
Starmail - 22. Mär, 18:58
Exeter and Devon try to help campaigners - More pressure for change
12:00 - 21 March 2005
703 back call for communications giant to abandon controversial mast plan in city
Here are 703 reasons why you should ditch your plan to put a mobile phone mast in Heavitree Road.
In just four weeks, 703 people have signed our petition objecting to your proposed 'third generation' mast which would be close to several schools and nurseries and almost directly outside the city's maternity unit.
Exeter City Council has already written to you asking that you seek an alternative site for this antenna. Devon County Council leaders are considering doing the same.
In Parliament, Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is backing our campaign and our city MP Ben Bradshaw is also writing to ask you to reconsider.
He is also seeking a high-level meeting with Planning Minister Keith Hill in a bid to tighten up the development controls on new transmitters like yours.
Bumble Bee Nursery, Puffins Nurseries, St Margaret's School and Bramdean School have all expressed concerns on behalf of the hundreds of children in their care.
But we also believe it is time you heard from the ordinary Exonians who will have to live and work near your mast, who take their children to schools near your mast and may even give birth near your mast.
We have received support for our petition from all around the city, the county and further afield - mainly from others involved in similar transmitter battles.
And they all say 'No' to your antenna - not here, not now.
Like all your market rivals, you insist your masts are safe despite many international studies suggesting otherwise.
Many in Exeter do not believe your assurances, but even more, want the question of whether masts are dangerous finally settled before having to live and work near this one.
And many in our city are outraged that while independent research is ongoing, you are pressing ahead and putting up your masts next to schools and health units.
Whatever happened to the precautionary approach recommended in the Stewart Report? If it does not apply in Heavitree Road, then where?
Here are some of the comments the people of Exeter - and elsewhere - wrote on our petition.
Margaret Langdon, of Pamela Road, Polsloe, wrote: "This proposal is wrong. We must consider the vulnerability of the young in this area first."
Toni Holmes, of Charnley Avenue, St Thomas, wrote: "It's absurd even to consider a mast there. I do hope they realise this before more people are put at risk for financial gain."
Janet Parr, of Union Road, Exeter, wrote: "Give us proof it's 100 per cent safe!"
Andrew Buchan, of Exmouth wrote: "I have three children going to school in the immediate area. I do not want companies gambling with the health of my children. To put it next to schools, hospitals, day care units etc is an obscene dereliction of care towards those who need our protection the most."
Jennifer Cook, of Archibald Road, St Leonard's, wrote: "The installation of such a mast, with all the uncertainty that surrounds them, should never be allowed in such a location - how on earth can they be allowed to get away with it?"
Jackie Napper, of Hamlin Lane, Heavitree, wrote: "Don't play with our children's lives! What's more important?"
Perhaps now, after reading the views of the people of Exeter, you might pause to rethink your proposal. You have not yet made a planning application and we sincerely hope you choose not to do so.
Yours etc.
A total of 703 signed our petition objecting to Vodafone's plan to place a mobile phone mast in Heavitree Road.
And 307 filled in slips printed in the Echo or wrote to us, while 79 emailed objections.
Another 317 have signed petitions left at Lavis News in Magdalen Road, Costcutters in Heavitree and Bumble Bees Nursery, in Heavitree Road.
We will be presenting copies of today's edition to Vodafone, all members of Exeter City Council's development control committee and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Mobile Communications.
--------
MP BACKS PETITION - Exeter
12:00 - 21 March 2005
City MP Ben Bradshaw is backing our petition and pressing for a top-level meeting, with the goal of tightening up planning restrictions on masts.
The Labour MP is writing to Vodafone urging them to find an alternative site for their mast and also requesting a meeting with Planning Minister, Keith Hill.
Mr Bradshaw told the Echo: "In the light of the strength of local opinion, and the case made by the Echo, I will be writing to Vodafone to ask them to to reconsider the location for the mast.
"And I will also be requesting from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister permission to take a delegation from Exeter to see Keith Hill, the minister responsible for planning issues.
"I am doing this because the Echo has made a strong case for a change to the planning guidelines which currently determine mast applications."
703 back call for communications giant to abandon controversial mast plan in city
Here are 703 reasons why you should ditch your plan to put a mobile phone mast in Heavitree Road.
In just four weeks, 703 people have signed our petition objecting to your proposed 'third generation' mast which would be close to several schools and nurseries and almost directly outside the city's maternity unit.
Exeter City Council has already written to you asking that you seek an alternative site for this antenna. Devon County Council leaders are considering doing the same.
In Parliament, Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is backing our campaign and our city MP Ben Bradshaw is also writing to ask you to reconsider.
He is also seeking a high-level meeting with Planning Minister Keith Hill in a bid to tighten up the development controls on new transmitters like yours.
Bumble Bee Nursery, Puffins Nurseries, St Margaret's School and Bramdean School have all expressed concerns on behalf of the hundreds of children in their care.
But we also believe it is time you heard from the ordinary Exonians who will have to live and work near your mast, who take their children to schools near your mast and may even give birth near your mast.
We have received support for our petition from all around the city, the county and further afield - mainly from others involved in similar transmitter battles.
And they all say 'No' to your antenna - not here, not now.
Like all your market rivals, you insist your masts are safe despite many international studies suggesting otherwise.
Many in Exeter do not believe your assurances, but even more, want the question of whether masts are dangerous finally settled before having to live and work near this one.
And many in our city are outraged that while independent research is ongoing, you are pressing ahead and putting up your masts next to schools and health units.
Whatever happened to the precautionary approach recommended in the Stewart Report? If it does not apply in Heavitree Road, then where?
Here are some of the comments the people of Exeter - and elsewhere - wrote on our petition.
Margaret Langdon, of Pamela Road, Polsloe, wrote: "This proposal is wrong. We must consider the vulnerability of the young in this area first."
Toni Holmes, of Charnley Avenue, St Thomas, wrote: "It's absurd even to consider a mast there. I do hope they realise this before more people are put at risk for financial gain."
Janet Parr, of Union Road, Exeter, wrote: "Give us proof it's 100 per cent safe!"
Andrew Buchan, of Exmouth wrote: "I have three children going to school in the immediate area. I do not want companies gambling with the health of my children. To put it next to schools, hospitals, day care units etc is an obscene dereliction of care towards those who need our protection the most."
Jennifer Cook, of Archibald Road, St Leonard's, wrote: "The installation of such a mast, with all the uncertainty that surrounds them, should never be allowed in such a location - how on earth can they be allowed to get away with it?"
Jackie Napper, of Hamlin Lane, Heavitree, wrote: "Don't play with our children's lives! What's more important?"
Perhaps now, after reading the views of the people of Exeter, you might pause to rethink your proposal. You have not yet made a planning application and we sincerely hope you choose not to do so.
Yours etc.
A total of 703 signed our petition objecting to Vodafone's plan to place a mobile phone mast in Heavitree Road.
And 307 filled in slips printed in the Echo or wrote to us, while 79 emailed objections.
Another 317 have signed petitions left at Lavis News in Magdalen Road, Costcutters in Heavitree and Bumble Bees Nursery, in Heavitree Road.
We will be presenting copies of today's edition to Vodafone, all members of Exeter City Council's development control committee and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Mobile Communications.
--------
MP BACKS PETITION - Exeter
12:00 - 21 March 2005
City MP Ben Bradshaw is backing our petition and pressing for a top-level meeting, with the goal of tightening up planning restrictions on masts.
The Labour MP is writing to Vodafone urging them to find an alternative site for their mast and also requesting a meeting with Planning Minister, Keith Hill.
Mr Bradshaw told the Echo: "In the light of the strength of local opinion, and the case made by the Echo, I will be writing to Vodafone to ask them to to reconsider the location for the mast.
"And I will also be requesting from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister permission to take a delegation from Exeter to see Keith Hill, the minister responsible for planning issues.
"I am doing this because the Echo has made a strong case for a change to the planning guidelines which currently determine mast applications."
Starmail - 22. Mär, 18:52
PHONE FIRM: SITE OUR ONLY OPTION
12:00 - 21 March 2005
Vodafone insists the Heavitree Road site is its only option after admitting that no other landowner in the area wants its mast.
The telecommunications giant says the proposed mast is key to meeting its licence commitment of providing 'third generation' coverage to 80 per cent of the UK population by 2007.
Although the company has confirmed it has still yet put in a planning application, Vodafone believes the site is "our only option in this area".
A Vodafone UK spokeswoman said: "We don't have a range of options in the Exeter area at the moment.
"We have had difficulty finding a site where someone is willing to accommodate us. We have done a large amount of pre-consultation in the area and written to the local councillors as well as the schools and nurseries. We have had 10 letters back so far. If someone can come up with an alternative site, we would consider it but there has been nothing suggested at the moment. We would like to share with other operators as under guidelines we are encouraged to do that and it could cost less, but at the moment we have no other options in the search area."
How Vodafone's planning application is dealt with will depend on the size of the mast.
If higher than 15 metres, it will be subject to the normal planning process. Lower than that height and it will be eligible for the 'prior approval' process.
If the local planning authority - Exeter City Council - does not respond within 56 days of such a 'prior approval' application, it is automatically passed.
Planning authorities can object but they are instructed to "first explore with the operator the possibility of modifying the siting and appearance of the proposed development".
Councils should also "take account of the obligations on code system operators to provide a service, and of technical constraints upon network development" when discussing alternative sites.
If applications are rejected, the operators have six months to issue a notice of an appeal.
Currently, under special planning guidance, Whitehall insists that if the proposed mast will emit at below international guidelines then "it should not be necessary for a local planning authority....to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them."
This applies to all mast applications regardless of height.
Critics, though, say the 15-metre high distinction is arbitrary and the prior approval process favours the applicant too much at the expense of local accountability.
The mobile operators say emissions from their masts are far below current, recognised international guidelines and in most cases they are willing to discuss siting issues with councils and communities.
Recently, city planners blocked a proposed Vodafone mast for Honiton Road - but on the grounds that it would be a visual intrusion.
From Mast Network
Vodafone insists the Heavitree Road site is its only option after admitting that no other landowner in the area wants its mast.
The telecommunications giant says the proposed mast is key to meeting its licence commitment of providing 'third generation' coverage to 80 per cent of the UK population by 2007.
Although the company has confirmed it has still yet put in a planning application, Vodafone believes the site is "our only option in this area".
A Vodafone UK spokeswoman said: "We don't have a range of options in the Exeter area at the moment.
"We have had difficulty finding a site where someone is willing to accommodate us. We have done a large amount of pre-consultation in the area and written to the local councillors as well as the schools and nurseries. We have had 10 letters back so far. If someone can come up with an alternative site, we would consider it but there has been nothing suggested at the moment. We would like to share with other operators as under guidelines we are encouraged to do that and it could cost less, but at the moment we have no other options in the search area."
How Vodafone's planning application is dealt with will depend on the size of the mast.
If higher than 15 metres, it will be subject to the normal planning process. Lower than that height and it will be eligible for the 'prior approval' process.
If the local planning authority - Exeter City Council - does not respond within 56 days of such a 'prior approval' application, it is automatically passed.
Planning authorities can object but they are instructed to "first explore with the operator the possibility of modifying the siting and appearance of the proposed development".
Councils should also "take account of the obligations on code system operators to provide a service, and of technical constraints upon network development" when discussing alternative sites.
If applications are rejected, the operators have six months to issue a notice of an appeal.
Currently, under special planning guidance, Whitehall insists that if the proposed mast will emit at below international guidelines then "it should not be necessary for a local planning authority....to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them."
This applies to all mast applications regardless of height.
Critics, though, say the 15-metre high distinction is arbitrary and the prior approval process favours the applicant too much at the expense of local accountability.
The mobile operators say emissions from their masts are far below current, recognised international guidelines and in most cases they are willing to discuss siting issues with councils and communities.
Recently, city planners blocked a proposed Vodafone mast for Honiton Road - but on the grounds that it would be a visual intrusion.
From Mast Network
Starmail - 22. Mär, 18:48
