Topic ID 1415
Letters have started arriving on behalf of National Grid Wireless, stating they are in negotiations with Vodaphone to put a powerful 3G mobile phone base station on the BT exchange in Greencoates. A 3G mast on a property bordering a Nursery and School. [xx(] Then there are the poor buggers in the Gwynns Walk flats who will only be about 20 metres from the mast. Does anyone have any experience with fighting something like this? Any advice would be helpful. If the Mercury are reading this, are you interested in taking up the baton and fighting for a good cause? The schools certainly don't want it, and neither do the residents of the nearby streets.
Reply ID 17484
There's already a forest of masts on top of the exchange. Will this one make any difference? And is this anything to do with the topic below? http://www.hertford.net/yoursay/topic.php?id=1413 If so, please post on that thread instead. Ta.
Reply ID 17502
Sounds like a different mast to me. The other thread seems to be focussed on Sele Farm.
Reply ID 17509
Steve, this is an new one, not the Becketts or Sele farm location. Although there are a few masts on the BT tower, they are nothing like the power of the new one being proposed. I hear that the neigbouring schools fought off case a few years back, and now it looks like Vodaphone are trying a different approach.
Reply ID 17510
Dude Can I ask how you know what power existing/proposed masts are radiating at?
Reply ID 17514
quote:http://www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk/ This is what is at the BT building / sorting office. Name of Operator O2 Operator Site Ref. HTF010O Station Type Macrocell Height of Antenna 29.85 Metres Frequency Range 400 MHz Transmitter Power 21 dBW Maximum licensed power 25 dBW Type of Transmission TETRA Name of Operator O2 Operator Site Ref. 1046 Station Type Macrocell Height of Antenna 27 Metres Frequency Range 900 MHz Transmitter Power 23.09 dBW Maximum licensed power 32 dBW Type of Transmission GSM Name of Operator O2 Operator Site Ref. 1046 Station Type Macrocell Height of Antenna 27 Metres Frequency Range 1800 MHz Transmitter Power 26.77 dBW Maximum licensed power 32 dBW Type of Transmission GSM
Originally posted by throwback
Dude Can I ask how you know what power existing/proposed masts are radiating at?
Reply ID 17516
This one always make me laugh! Don't use a mobile and they won't put mast up! Easy. Most kids have phones in their pockets anyway which is also a transmitter 9which they also hold next to their head).
Reply ID 17525
quote:It's a question of where to build them.
Originally posted by And
This one always make me laugh! Don't use a mobile and they won't put mast up! Easy. Most kids have phones in their pockets anyway which is also a transmitter 9which they also hold next to their head).
Reply ID 17526
……….…………………………………. ……….…………………………………. ……….…………………………………. Date as post mark Dear Sir RE: PLANNING APPLICATION No. …...........…………………. ERECTION OF TELECOMMUNICATION MAST ON LAND AT ……………..................…… I write in objection to the proposed installation of a telecommunication mast and ancillary equipment on land situated at …….................………………….. . The siting and design of the proposed mast will detract from, and adversely affect the amenity of the locality. I therefore urge your authority to reject the application. As you will be aware, there are a large number of conflicting academic reports on the dangers of irradiation emitted from base stations. With this in mind I urge you to follow the recommendation of the Stewart Report, and adopt a precautionary approach (see para 1.21 and 6.16 of that report) in deciding applications for telecommunication base stations. This approach as you will be aware is enshrined within the national planning policy structure of the UK, as well as European legislation (Please refer to the Government White Paper "This Common Inheritance", PPG23 "Planning and Pollution Control" and "Sustainable Development - the UK Strategy", as well as being enshrined in the Treaty of European Union (Maastricht, 1992; in force from 1.11.93) - Title XVI: Environment, Article 130r).: Article 130r "1) Community policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives: preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment; protecting human health; prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources; Promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems. 2) Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based on the precautionary principles that preventative action should be taken, that environmental damage should be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay... (p39)" The Stewart Report states at para 1.19: We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach’. I am very concerned that the biological affects and irradiation emmitted from the proposed development will affect not only my own health but that of my family, and those visiting my home. As such I urge you to use the power confered upon you by para 29 of PPG8 and attach considerable weight to the fear that the majority of local residents have. The Stewart Report recommends that exclusion zones are placed around all base stations, and indeed some countries already have exclusion zones. This recommendation clearly indicates that there is a potential for concern in placing masts close to sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals and residential areas. Exclusion Zones (1.44) We recommend the establishment of clearly defined physical exclusion zones around base station antennas, which delineate areas within which exposure guidelines may be exceeded (paragraph 6.49 – 6.52). The incorporation of exclusion zones should be part of the template of planning protocols that we advocate. Physical Barriers (1.45) Each exclusion zone should be defined by a physical barrier and a readily identifiable nationally agreed sign with a logo. This should inform the public and workers that inside the exclusion zone there might be RF emissions which exceed national guidelines. The government recommends that local authorities do not take health effects into consideration, however many local authorities are rejecting these recommendations including Kent County Council, which refuses to endorse consents on any council land, due to their concerns over health. I would also draw your attention to the following cases where the High Court granted leave to apply for judicial review due to the failure of the respective local authorities to take the concern of the local communities on health effects of masts - R v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Smith - The Queen on the application of Julia Herman & Others v Winchester City Council and Orange Personal Communications Services Limited - Mr Justice Hooper & The Honourable Mr Justice Ouseley - Case No. CO/956/2001 - R v. Forest of Dean Borough Council. As well as the decision in the Section 288 appeal to the High Court in Trevett v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Region where the court found that it would fetter the obligation of the decision maker to take the concerns of the public on health into account if they were to restrict their deliberations solely to whether an ICNIRP complient cirtificate had been submitted by the Operator. However, even if a rejection of the arguments relating to the precautionary approach is taken by the local planning authority, we would urge you to consider the effect the size and design this mast will have on the amenity of the local area, towering as it will some ……… ft into the air, which will contrast with the residential nature/open aspect of the locality. PPG8 makes it clear that a rejection of permitted development permission is acceptable for base stations should the LPA conclude that it would have an adverse effect on the amenity of the area. I also take this opportunity to draw your attention to the factors listed in PPG8 Annex 1 para 13 that may involve siting: •the height of the site in relation to surrounding land; •the existence of topographical features and natural vegetation; •the effect on the skyline or horizon; •the site when observed from any side, including from outside the authority's own area; •the site in relation to areas designated locally for their scenic or conservation value; •the site in relation to existing masts, structures or buildings, including buildings of a historical or traditional character; •>the site in relation to residential property; and •any other relevant considerations. There is as you will be aware an obligation contained within PPG8 for operators to hold talks with local authorities, and recommendations that these discussions should also include other organisations such as local residents groups. Could you therefore supply me with information relating to these meetings, in particular the out come of the obligatory talks that the local authority held with the Operator, along with details of any residents groups who took part, or were invited to take part in these discussions. I would also draw your attention to the case of Yasmin Skelt v First Secretary of State, where the Secretary of State conceeded that health concerns are material planning considerations, that the mere fact that a Telecommunication Code System Operator has provided an ICNIRP complient certificate is not a bar to the full consideration of such health concerns, and that a failure to conser such concerns may lead to the courts overturning a decision. I would also draw your attention to the successive letters circulated to all planning authorities from the previous threePlanning Ministers that prior approval applications should be determined as if they are full planning applications in all but name, and therefore urge that you give appropriate consideration to the affects on the local community and the fears over health that we hold. Whilst reserving the right to make further representation on this application, I urge you to refuse permission for the above reasons. Yours sincerely …………………………… Local resident
Reply ID 17527
Objection - That the development is proposed within 3 km of an aerodrome or airfield (name aerodrome) .................. (amend this to take account of any such statement) The applicant states in their supplementary supporting information, in section ??, that the structure is not proposed within 3km of an aerodrome or airfield and that the Civil Aviation Authority has not, as a consequence, been informed. There is, however, the very real potential for microwave emissions to interfere with the controls of aircraft, whether full size or model, and cause a catastrophic air crash resulting in a possible loss of life. Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO Para A.3(2) requires the Operator to have notified the Civil Aviation Authority, the Secretary of State for Defence, or the Aerodrome Operator before submitting the application, as they have failed to do this then the application has not been lawfully made. Therefore if the LPA were to approve this application any decision would be deemed to be ultra vires.
Reply ID 17530
SMH You quote many websites and have pasted all sorts of text, and I'm sure you believe it all but some of it is pure rubbish. I especially like the bit about not locating sites near an airfield. Most networks have a site on each of the main airport buildings, sometimes backed up by indoor sites within the terminals themselves. There are very strict regulations on the siting of these and operators stay well below limits. More is being done to make the masts more visually pleasing and to make them fit in to surrounding landscape. There are more and more masts being constructed for one reason, demand, and I'm sure you are a user yourself. Please get facts straight before complaining.
Reply ID 17542
Throwback. You ask SMH to "get facts straight before complaining". If these "facts" come from government reports, scientific investigation and professional opinion, whether you agree with them or not, where else would you suggest getting the "facts straight"?
Reply ID 17544
Dude As with all investiagtions, they are based on opinion. So many people have investigated this and have constantly not been able to prove that there is ANY risk to health. I agree that common sense must be used when siting masts, and it is. This is just the latest thing for people to complain about. We are all happy to have a microwave in our kitchen (higher frequency and power) to cook our food but worry about a 12M mast disguised as a street lamp 50 meters away. Strict guidelines are in place and are followed. Maybe my wording in my previous post was not correct, but I find it annoying that people make sweeping statements which don't help anyone. I have worked in mobile telecomms for may years and you usually find the people complaining about every mast erected are the same ones who are complaining to whoever they have thier contract witht hat the mobile doesn't work very well in the lounge. On a lighter note which you may find amusing, we have had sites shot at, hitched to a tow bar and pulled out, and one large tower had the bolts removed from the base and jacked up until it fell over. People do go further than just complaining.
Reply ID 17545
quote:I especially like the bit that says it is not a problem to install within 3k of an airfield, but in addition to planning permission you need CAA approval. I would imagine that is to ensure that the CAAs
Originally posted by throwback
I especially like the bit about not locating sites near an airfield.
quote:are heeded. But hey what do I know. The Stewart report from the "Independant Expert Group on Mobile Phones" http://www.iegmp.org.uk/terms/index.htm was government sponsored
Originally posted by throwbackvery strict regulations on the siting of these and [ensuring] operators stay well below limits.
quote:, throwback, can I rely on the facts / opinions in that, especially that a precautionary approach would be prudent? Can I rely on the fact that the CAA has to approve a mast within 3k of an airport (and Panshanger counts). Can I not make use of publicly stated government planning policy (PPG23) and rights enshrined in EU treaties such as Maastricht? I understand that they are a necessary part of building a mobile phone network - which, yes I use. However there are good sites and bad sites, should we let networks build where they want, because it is cheap and easy, or should we require they take the locale into consideration, I belive we live in a democracy where the latter still applies unless that is another FACT that I need to get straight. I look forward to you providing me with some good links / reports and facts to show that I have posted rubbish, at the moment you have told me to get my facts straight and given me no guidance as to how to, this is a forum where both sides can be aired, please air you viewpoint with facts to back it up. EDIT - saw this on a link a few days ago - I guess now is a good time to add it to the mix.
In March 1999, the Chairman of NRPB, Sir Walter Bodmer FRS, was asked by Tessa Jowell, the Minister for Public Health, to set up an independent expert working group to assess the current state of research into possible health risks from mobile phones.
quote:http://www.iegmp.org.uk/terms/index.htm http://www.iegmp.org.uk/terms/index.htm Certainly blends in - I imagine anyone looking to buy one of those houses will imagine there is just a pretty tree in the front garden.
Originally posted by throwback
More is being done to make the masts more visually pleasing and to make them fit in to surrounding landscape.
Reply ID 17550
SMH You can take as fact anything you choose to. Yes a precautionary approach is sensible, like anything else, you use a bit of common sense. I don't feel I need to back up anything I have said with quotes, reports, web pages. I use a mobile, I want to be able to use it where I need to, therefore I accept there will need to be towers constructed. I accept there are good and bad, I know for a fact it is now nearly impossible to build monstrosities as in the picture, as operators are responding to critisism and building better, less visible sites. As for your picture, I think you need to look again. The site is obviously on a water tower behind the trees at the end of the row of houses. It has nothing to do with the lamp post in front of the houses (or do you have a problem with light radiation as well?)You have obviously seen it as you want to see it to back up you 'argument'
Reply ID 17559
quote:Indeed - the depth of field in that image certainly makes it deceptive.
Originally posted by throwback
It has nothing to do with the lamp post in front of the houses (or do you have a problem with light radiation as well?)You have obviously seen it as you want to see it to back up you 'argument'
Reply ID 17560
I can see both sides of the coin, but at the end of the day, our own government has gone on record to say that the masts should not be built near schools because of "possible" dangers to children. Yet the phone companies are still attempting to build them right next door. This one in question is being suggested right next to two schools!
Reply ID 17562
Obviously playing devils advocate before because I work in the profession but I do agree with some points. I think there should be an exclusion zone around schools/nurseries, and I do think members of the public should be considered. The big problem is the demand for coverage is usually within town centers or residentail areas which is why masts end up being built there. I have no coverage where I live which is annoying but then I would not want to overlook a big ugly tower. Maybe we should go back to talking to eachother face to face and using phone boxes!! Have a good weekend all.
Reply ID 17565
quote:For me, this is the heart of the matter. If you insert "thalidomide" instead of "exposure to RF radiation" we would, with hindsight, agree the precautionary approach. If you insert "having x-rays" or "taking antibiotics" we would, with hindsight, disagree with the precautionary approach. If we inserted "driving at the speed limit" there would be a good old row. Very little is risk free and the onus is to prove, 100%, without doubt, to the agreement of everyone, even those who don't understand the highly technical arguments that it is "safe" - and this is impossible. There will always be example of the woman who can't live in a house with electricity or the man who can't hold a metal knife and fork as examples as to why there is some residual risk and why things ought to be treated with scepticism - and in todays world of spin who can blame us. I see that RF can and does pose a hazard under certain conditions. However the level at which that hazard occurs is much higher than the fields emitted by mobile phones or base-stations under normal operations. And by that I mean if you stand by, right next to a mobile phone mast, you will be exposed to high levels of RF energy. But you don't, not even if you have one right outside your window - why? because the mobile phone industry and OFCOM and the Government Cabinet Office committee are so paranoid about a possible problem that it won't be allowed to happen. Although SMH provides a strong response based on a legal basis, it is only one point of view based on Stewart (a good piece of work though it was) and there is a wealth of knowledge as things move on and improve. The usual standards are, as SMH eluded to, the ICNIRP levels. But these are seen not to tell the whole story and there are better ways of modelling RF absorbtion through models of the human body, called Norman for a man and Naomi for a woman - they are very accurate representations of all parts (and I do mean all parts) of the human body. This takes time and will still be subject to one-off exceptions so will we ever get to a conclusion? The suggestion of an exclusion zone (presumably in line with ICNIRP recommendations is impractical and would not achieve anything. There would be an area in the sky around the aerial and where no-one would go anyway. And still we would all have phones at our ears. Personally, I am not adverse to the current designs of mobile phone base stations and RF radiation, I don't think that arguments linked to Stewart or levels of radiation are worth pursuing because they will (and remember we have thousands of base stations) be lower than recommended levels of radiation. The mobile phone industry invariably plans at lower levels and will always say so - "we are better than Stewart/ICNIRP anyway" and "you all want to use mobile phones". I suggest that 1) environmental impact has a greater argument - especially as there are recommendations to co-site stations and Gwynns Walk is close to BT Greencoates. 2)operators do an awful lot of work in planning their networks and coverage but very little of this vast amount of work is made available to the public because it is commercially sensitive. That is an area that could be exploited for them to demonstrate their coverage - and so provide a means of changing aerial design and coverage away from your window where the signal isn't wanted to up and down the street where it is wanted. If you make them do more work then they will move onto the next easiest solution. Sorry for the long post - but it's still shorter than the one from SMH[:D]
Originally posted by SMH 'We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach’