World-News

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060907/090206.shtml

What a good idea - to be extended to Cinemas, Restaurants, Public buildings, public open spaces, markets, shopping malls, trains, buses........... Sylvia

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/news561.pdf

This is brilliant. Well done to all of you who contributed to this and made it happen.

http://www.schnews.co.uk/archive/news561.htm

John E.

Thought you might be interested in this radio programme from BBC Radio 4 in the UK. The last paragraph of the programme description (see below) is particular of significance to anyone with EHS.

Looks like anyone with EHS will not longer be able to fly, just as we have been excluded from electric trains/trams. I know Ryanair a budget airline based in the UK and Ireland has announced plans to allow mobile on its flights (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5298332.stm )

The Material World BBC Radio 4 Thursday 14 September 2006

Audio Link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/rams/materialworld.ram
Web Link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/thematerialworld.shtml

PROGRAMME DETAILS

"I'm on the Plane!"

Those are words to sink the hearts of peace-loving travellers.

At present, mobile phone use is banned on planes on safety grounds, but surveillance equipment shows that many frequent fliers ignore the rule.

So are mobile phones a genuine threat to air safety or just to airlines' income from their own in-flight phones? Surely it's OK to leave your phone switched on if you don't actually make a call?

No, says Bill Strauss, who researches electromagnetic compatibility in the USA. He points out that your mobile will send out stronger and stronger signals to try to stay in touch with phone masts on the ground.

If US and European phones on the same flight both do so, they produce interference on the same frequency as the plane uses for its GPS navigation equipment. There is circumstantial evidence of occasions where the GPS has been 150 miles off course, perhaps as a result.

Even electronic equipment not intended for communications, such as music players and games consoles can produce interference at critical frequencies, the research shows.

But there could be ways round these problems and some airlines have plans to introduce their own in-flight mobile phones systems using what are called picocells. Paul Guckian is working on them at Qualcomm in the USA, European companies are also developing the technology.

The idea is to keep the signals low, effectively by flying a mini phone mast in the plane. But each plane must pass stringent safety tests for electrical interference and quite a few passengers may have objections to the audio interference!

--------

Discord in the air over mobiles

Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 16/09/2006)

Airlines are divided over the use of mobile phones on flights, following the announcement by Ryanair last week that it will equip its planes with mobile-phone technology by the end of next year.

Air France will be first to allow in-flight calls during a six-month trial in February. Bmi and Tap Air Portugal will follow shortly after.

EasyJet, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have so far resisted introducing the technology, which has yet to be approved by the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT).

Virgin Atlantic said it had no plans for mobiles, while BA said it was consulting passengers. "There is a whole world of difference in using mobiles on a mid-week 7am business flight to Paris and a 10-hour flight to Tampa in the school holidays," said a BA spokeswoman.

An EasyJet spokesman said the airline was looking at the issue, but so far feedback from travellers said that most would rather not be pestered by constant phone calls.

Ryanair's announcement may yet prove premature, if the introduction of the technology is not approved. However, the airline is confident that it will get the go-ahead. Tests have shown the technology does not interfere with aircraft equipment, but there are still concerns about interference with ground-based mobile-phone networks.

Passengers, however, appear to be divided on the issue. A recent survey by the ONAir telecommunications company of 2,500 travellers flying from Heathrow, Charles de Gaulle and Hong Kong International airports revealed that 65 per cent of people travelling for business reasons would turn their devices on during flights, and that, of these, 94 per cent would take calls and check emails in the air. But in a separate survey of 1,500 travellers conducted by Monarch Airlines, 67 per cent of passengers claimed that having to listen to other people's ringtones would be one of the most annoying inflight experiences.


Informant: Margaret E White

From Private Eye magazine - 15 Sept. 06

'Labour Conference (2006) Special' -

Delegates to the Labour Party Conference in Manchester may be looking forward to big changes at the top, but on the fringes it will be 'business' as usual.

The big corporations will be out in force, rubbing shoulders with ministers at the usual round of self-interested meetings masquerading as policy discussions.......

Mobile Phones

Lord Sainsbury meanwhile will discuss how the media should respond to science "scare stories" at a meeting sponsored by the Mobile Operators Association. He will speak alongside the trade body's own Mike Dolan.

The phone operators are keen to get Labour onside in the many local battles they face to get their phone masts built and conference will host a rash of other ministers-and-mobiles meetings too.

Financially challenged '3mobile' is sponsoring a separate get together with Culture Minister Tessa Jowell (in charge of telecom regulator OfCom) and Home Office Minister Liam Byrne.

O2 meanwhile is paying for a meeting with Jowell, hosted by another Labour-linked think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research.

(article continues with other big. biz. New Labour schmoozings - big food, nuclear, big oil, pensions etc. ......)

(artjar)

A decision will be made next Tuesday by the planning committee at County Hall, Haverfordwest, on whether to allow a 15m pole with Tetra antennae on top, at Crackwell Farm, The Ridgeway, Penally.

“There has been a lot of confusion as Airwave O2 have used a loophole in the planning system which allows masts to be erected at this height without full planning permission; the company just need to give a ‘prior notification of intention to develop’,” said one of the campaigners against the mast, Clr. Mrs. Ann Dassen.

“The county council are allowed to refuse permission, but the decision needs to be made and delivered within 56 days, otherwise the approval is given by default.

“What is equally worrying is that Airwave’s agent submitted this notification without waiting for any response to a pre-planning application letter they are obliged to send under Government and Telecom industry guidelines. Penally Community Council sent a strong letter of objection to the proposal and gave a list of neighbouring properties, who should also have been contacted, one of the most important being The Wheelabout operated by The Harriet Davis Trust.

“Luckily most close neighbours have now been made aware of the application by Pembrokeshire County Council’s planning department and I believe all have sent very strong letters of objection,” stated Clr. Mrs. Dassen.

The site proposed is only approximately 100m west of the original site (under appeal) and would be a fifth mast in such a very sensitive area, along a very short section of the well publicised Ritec Walk. “The most tragic part of this bombardment of applications and appeals, is that the whole future of a charity for severely disabled children is at stake,” continued Clr. Mrs. Dassen. “Written proof of this has been sent to all involved. Other sites have been identified, and tested by the police and found to be adequate, so why on earth does the vice-chairman of Airwave, Mr. Jeff Parris, not honour his promise to Mr. and Mrs. Davis and apply away from this area?

“We have to remain very patient and diligent in order to teach this big conglomerate that they will not win the day by bullying with their constant applications. Defending the rights of some of the most vulnerable children in our society is worth every letter, phone call and meeting necessary.

“We truly hope that the planning committee will refuse this latest application and all others submitted nearby. We are confident that the Planning Inspectorate in Cardiff will also take these matters very seriously and follow previous refusals, because of the number of masts there already and the close proximity of The Harriet Davis Trust property.

“May we thank the readers of the Tenby Observer for the letters they have written and ask as many supporters as possible to please attend next Tuesday’s planning meeting at 10 am at County Hall. Anyone needing transport, please fill in the list at Penally Post Office or telephone Ann Dassen on 01834 844957.”

Copyright Tindle Newspapers Ltd 08 September 06

http://www.tenby-today.co.uk/today/options/news/newsdetail.cfm?id=29869

A letter about objecting to masts, Mast Sanity help line, and health effects of microwave radiation was printed in the Bognor Regis Observer 24th August 06 and in the West Sussex Gazette today, with a colour photo of Sidlesham TETRA mast.

On the 31st August edition of the Bognor Regis Observer there was a long letter ridiculing my letter of the 24th from supposedly a local resident who had all his facts wrong i.e. calling all phone masts TETRA masts; saying that the likelyhood is that we are all being cooked alive; saying TETRA has been around for years; that cordless phones do not use microwaves, but lower frequency radio waves - as does WiFi; that people could join my club and be given a free foil hat; and describes me as a frightened resident with too much time on her hands. (I wish!) I had emails and phone calls from the local sensitives who were livid.

This could hold the letters page for a while if the Bog Ob prints mine and another I had sent to me to say she was backing me - so is this worth thinking about for letters to the editor?

Sandi

See 2 replies to this below.

I am used to responses such as that of Alex Murphy to my letter of 24th August 06 (Letters 31st August edition of Bognor Observer) but I acknowledge that he is as much entitled to his viewpoint as I am to mine.

I have also learnt from experience that you just can’t have a sensible debate with people who scorn what they do not understand and have not researched properly – and Mr Murphy clearly has not researched this issue. If he had, he would have known that TETRA is a communications system and not a mobile phone network. Even Sir William Stewart, the Government’s own independent advisor acknowledged that TETRA was not in his remit.

TETRA was introduced in the UK about 4/5 years ago and only came to the Bognor area in January 2004.

No one in this country will be ‘slowly cooked alive’ as the ICNIRP guidelines are set to avoid going over the threshold of what is safe for the thermal effects of microwave radiation, and this includes TETRA and mobile phone masts, TETRA handsets and mobile phones.

However, Sir William Stewart in his 2005 report for the National Radiological Protection Board (now Health Protection Agency) did clearly state at:

“1.18 There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines. (paragraphs 5.176-5.194. 6.38). This does not necessarily mean that these effects lead to disease or injury, but it is potentially important information and we consider the implications below.

1.19 There are additional factors that need to be taken into account in assessing any possible health effects. Populations as a whole are not genetically homogeneous and people can vary in their susceptibility to environmental hazards. There are some well-established examples in the literature of the genetic predisposition of some groups, which could influence sensitivity to disease. There could also be dependence on age.

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 the knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach. (Chapter 5, paragraphs 6.35-6.42)”

I will not go on to discuss the cordless phones, pulsed signals and other things because clearly Mr Murphy would rather ridicule the plight of some unfortunate people who have become sensitive to this technology rather than research and be sure of his facts. It puts me in mind of how insensitively the mentally ill and handicapped are treated at times by people who just cannot be bothered to try to understand.

For those who do want to understand I will simply say that it can be a bleak and lonely existence. Sensitive people – and there are those who are sensitive to electrical and magnetic fields – need protection, which costs extra money. They are also limited as to what they can do or what they can use. Many cannot experience the convenience of the mobile phone, digital TV/radio/computers etc.

Some cannot leave their protected homes for long – or even at all - or visit shops, entertainment centres, or towns and cities.

If one partner is not sensitive to this technology there can be a lot of stress, even in long-standing relationships; or relatives who do not understand can distance themselves from the sensitive person.

I have to say that there are many wonderful and caring people in the mast movement who are concerned for people, our children and their future - even those like Mr Murphy who ridicule them. Why? Because a well known independent scientist, Professor Olle Johansson believes, as we do, that time will prove that we ‘sensitives’ are the forerunners of what is to come.

We would dearly love to be proved wrong, but the jury is out and only time will tell. Meanwhile too many of us live as we do and as best we can.

My letter was not one of a ‘frightened resident’ trying to cause panic. I have lived this way since early 2003 when I encountered TETRA in another area and did not even know what it was, or what a mobile phone mast looked like. I did not discover what had made me disabled and ill until March 2004. I accept that until there is change then I can expect no different. Rather, I was hoping to make the isolated sensitive people in this area aware that there are others like them, and that we are trying to press for changes in getting this condition recognised so that their condition is accepted and better understood in society.

Mrs Sandi Lawrence


I have just read with disgust, Alex Murphy’s letter on the attempt to ridicule the people who seemingly suffer from the technology of Tetra Masts!

It always brings a smile to my face when I read another ignorant letter from an unsympathetic resident who obviously cares only for themselves and who would like to stop all freedom of speech! It makes me smile because Alex Murphy has no evidence to suggest that Tetra does not affect some people. He has no evidence to suggest that the problem in some people will not increase as time goes on. He has no evidence to suggest that Tetra will not form clusters of illness such as Motor Neurons Disease or Cancer as time goes on. Tetra is an untested technology! In my opinion, to be untested means that questions and answers need to be asked and found. We have so many things pushed onto us, so many technologies that later are found to be unsafe. Nobody yet, knows the long term affects of Tetra and unfortunately it is we, the people who have to wait for time to pass before we find the truth! Alex Murphy is one such person!

Sandi Lawrence does her best to inform people of the many ways in which the Tetra technology can affect the daily running of people’s precious lives. She is constant and tireless in her fight against the misuse of Tetra. She is a far better person than me because she is ceaseless.

My family and I all suffered from the Tetra mast that was on the top of Reynolds. We lived to close to it. I and many others campaigned to bring it down because it affected our health. In a small health survey, done at the time, over two hundred residents in my area, said they suffered strange and unusual health abnormalities and that could not be ignored. Families do not normally have headaches in the same place in the head, at the same time. My smaller son had nose bleeds, sometimes up to twenty five separate ones a day. He was unable to go to school properly for 10 months, during this time. We involved the school, the local council, the Doctors and paediatricians, Health and Safety, the Government. I didn’t feel very well myself and so it was all made harder. All I wanted to do was rest and not get involved, but my son was worse than me and therefore I fought on. Not one authority could give me any reason for the ill health of my family. There is no evidence, in Government to suggest that it was the Tetra mast that caused our problems, however, more importantly there is no evidence to suggest that it was not. The medical people never gave me a valid reason for the ill health of my family. I was alone and angry. The Tetra crusaders gave me strength and back up. Let’s hope that Alex Murphy’s children/ grand children are never sensitive to such technologies, because they are likely never to have any sympathy. That coupled with a permanent headache would be unbearable for them!

After spending two years battling for our health, finally I realised that the only course of action was to move house, in the hope that it would relieve of us of our plight. It took three months for us to feel alive and to enjoy our right to live normally again. No authority gave me a valid reason for our new found health either! My son is now back at school and back to full health. My advice to anyone who feels that they might have similar feelings of ill health is to move away from the masts if they can. It works! That does not mean however that we cannot feel the presence of Tetra when we travel to towns. However, living further away from it rocks! I certainly was never given any hope or relief that worked, from any authority at all. They let us down because they do not have the knowledge to help. Alex Murphy, stop having a go at the people who care, the people who go out of their way to spread knowledge to others, they people who are very busily trying to give up precious time to make the world a better place. You just keep looking the other way. My vote of confidence lies with people like Sandi Lawrence.

Yours sincerely

From Gary

A COUNCILLOR fought to have a mobile phone mast near her house because she said it was the best place for it.

Pat Hawkes has campaigned against similar masts in her Hollingbury and Stanmer ward in Brighton.

But she said a new application for a pole by her home was "the lesser of all evils".

A petition with 72 signatures was sent to Brighton and Hove City Council to object to plans for a 12.5m mast on land by Coldean Lane.

Objectors said the application from telecom giant O2, which would share its signal with H3G, would be too close to a school and would be out of keeping with the area.

They argued the mast would spark health concerns and was unnecessary because a mast from another company was put up recently.

But the green light was given to the proposals on Wednesday after Coun Hawkes spoke in their favour.

She said it was inevitable that all mobile phone companies would eventually put up masts in the area and the key was to make sure they were in the best place and shared poles as much as possible

(The Argus, Sept 1st)

--------

I read with dismay the comments of Cllr. Pat Hawkes supporting the sitting of a mast close to her home and a nearby school. If she is willing to have a mast so close, with the full knowledge of the adverse health effects that both she and the hundreds of children may well encounter as a result, then one must surely doubt her competence to represent the local community. Does she not understand that a second mast simply doubles the exposure and risk, or did she not take maths at school? She has scant regard for the health of the local electorate and her position, as a councillor, should be brought into question.

If on the other hand she has no knowledge of the inevitable adverse health effects, despite having been warned of the potential risks, then she should at least adopt the precautionary approach before making such uninformed comments. I would suggest that she reads any or all of the following reports. Freiburger, Santini or Nalia.

Freiburger:- On the basis of our daily experiences, we hold the current mobile communications technology (introduced in 1992 and since then globally extensive) and cordless digital telephones (DECT standard) to be among the fundamental triggers for this fatal development.

Santini:- From these results and in applying the precautionary principle, it is advisable that cellular phone base stations should not be sited closer than 300 m to populations and most significantly because exposed people can have different sensitivities related particularly to their sex and their age. The facing position appears to be the worst one for distances from cellular phone base stations less than 100 m.

The result of this retrospective study in Naila shows that the risk of newly developing cancer was three times higher among those patients who had lived during past ten years (1994-2004), within a distance of 400m from the cellular transmitter, in comparison to those who had lived further away.

These and others can be found on the following web sites.

http://www.mastsanity.org/
http://www.scram.uk.com/
http://www.w-a-r-t.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/


Peter Mobley
Concerned Resident
13 Wellington Road, Brighton.

--------

Dr Boyask (Argus letters, Sept 1st) rightly slams the ineffectiveness of Government advice in preventing the siting of phone masts near schools and nurseries. Overwhelming evidence of what masts and other microwave devices are doing to people health is on Mast Sanitys' website at http://www.mastsanity.org

Conversely, key Government advice favouring the telecom companies is treated as law by Council planning departments. Council planners are scared into agreeing to mast proposals by paragraph 30 of section eight of the Governments' Planning and Policy Guidance notes which states that in the Governments’ firm view, if the mast meets ICNIRP (International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines then health should not be considered further. The point of this is to bully Councils into thinking that this is a rule they have to follow. It is not. It is just the Governments’ opinion.

The Newport case, a non mast case which won because the judge said perceived health should have been, but wasn’t, considered, has proven that perceived health risk is a valid planning condition and the Government do not have the power to overthrow the court's ruling in this.

Specifically relating to masts, in the Stroud case the judge stated that if the decision maker blindly stopped at the ICNIRP guidelines then they would fetter their obligation to consider the concerns of residents on a case by case basis.

For everyones sakes we cannot afford the fatalistic attitude of Councillor Pat Hawkes (The Argus, September 1st) that it is inevitable that all mobile phone companies will eventually put up masts anywhere they like.

Gary

CAMPAIGNERS in Arnison Avenue are celebrating victory after a controversial phone mast put up in February was pulled down last week.

The 45ft mast was removed by O2 on Tuesday just as Barry Evans, founder of the NO2 Mast Group, was preparing to fight the mobile phone giants before a judge the next day.

Barry, 59, a software tester from Arnison Avenue, Totteridge, said: "I am pleased.

"It shows that you need to push them and they will back down. This could all have been sorted over a cup of coffee weeks ago."

The mast was put up despite O2 failing to get planning permission by Wycombe District Council after the company used a legal loophole.

The phone company realised the council had missed the deadline to respond to its application by one day, giving it automatic permission to install the mast. The council has 56 days to respond to applications.

O2 took the pole down last week because, the company said, they decided it was no longer needed.

Jim Stevenson, from O2, said it was a "coincidence" that the court case was the next day and promised the mast would not be making a reappearance.

He said: "We have tweaked a few of our other antennae and we realised we don't need this one any more. It will go back in storage and be used somewhere else in the country."

Now Barry is trying to make sure he does not have to pay costs for the court case, and has threatened to ask the council for compensation if he gets a bill.

He said: "I will write to them because they failed to do their job in the first place. This mast should never have gone up."

Catherine Spalton, from the council, said: "Should Mr Evans choose to submit an official reclamation of costs to the council, we would seek legal advice. However, the council was not party to these proceedings, and as such there is no basis apparent to the council under which such a claim could be sustained."

© Copyright 2001-2006 Newsquest Media Group

http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.uk/news/roundup/display.var.899033.0.phone_mast_victory_celebrated.php

--------

East London Residents campaign

I received this on the email address the Mast Sanity SE Coord emails are sent to. No one is asking for advice, so I guess they just want to inform us? But curiously I cannot see a cc to SE Coord anywhere. Has anyone any knowledge of this group please?

Sandi


alex morton wrote:

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:29:39 +0100 (BST)
From: alex morton
Subject: EAST LONDON RESIDENTS CAMPAIGN AGAINST T-MOBILE - "it's now or never"

Further to our press release in June, after doing some further preparatory works, T-Mobile have now started today digging the hole for the installation of the mast at 34 Aldersbrook Road, E12.

They attended at the site today with 5 contractors to dig the hole and erected a 6-foot fence(!) guarded by a further 10 contractors(!) who pushed back anyone who tried to scale the fence and took photographs of all protesters including their children.

Local residents, including one who is 8 months' pregnant, intend to attend at the site again tomorrow to oppose the installation of the unwanted mast.

Despite promising to re-check whether the mast is in fact required for local reception, (the coverage maps with the original planning application did not in fact show this and T-Mobile have installed a mast nearby at Centre Road which they said was required to replace it) T-Mobile are going ahead without comunicating again with local residents.

Other operators are investigating other sites in the area more acceptable to local residents but only T-Mobile insist upon going ahead with this site in the face of local opposition.

Some local residents have terminated their contracts with T-Mobile and moved to other operators. T-Mobile do not seem to care about this any more than the views of local residents.

Aldersbrook Residents' Mast Solution ("ARMS")

Alex Morton 07970119793
Elizabeth Canavan 0208 530 2658


alex morton wrote:

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 10:54:06 +0100 (BST)
From: alex morton
Subject: EAST LONDON RESIDENTS CONTINUE CAMPAIGN AGAINST T-MOBILE


PRESS RELEASE

EAST LONDON RESIDENTS TO CONTINUE TELECOM MAST CAMPAIGN

On Friday 23rd June T-Mobile began work on the erection of an unsightly “mobile mast” and equipment cabin in an East London conservation area.

In the past hundreds of residents have laid down on Wanstead Flats to highlight their campaign (see attached photos from October 2005), stopped the traffic on Aldersbrook Road, held sit down protests on the site when T-Mobile carried out investigative works and picketed local T-Mobile shops.

When works continue (likely to be on Monday 26th June) local residents and parents from local schools have pledged to continue their opposition to this unpopular development.



T-Mobile’s application for planning permission was refused by Redbridge Council but the company then appealed successfully to the Planning Inspectorate.

Points to note:-

1. The site is outside the Bowls Club at 34 Aldersbrook Road, E12 5DY about 200 metres from Aldersbrook Primary School and even closer to the St Gabriel’s Church “pre-school”. It is in the Aldersbrook Conservation Area and opposite the “green belt” open space of Wanstead Flats.

2. Local residents formed Aldersbrook Residents Mast Solution (“ARMS”) to fight intrusive mast developments and seek a solution.

3. Following T-Mobile’s successful planning appeal both Orange and O2 have applied to erect masts only a short distance away giving rise to the prospect of a cluster of unsightly masts and equipment cabins in this prominent location and the unknown effects of all their combined high frequency transmissions on the health of local residents and their children.

4. For several years ARMS have been asking T-Mobile to meet with them to discuss less intrusive alternative sites which would also be further away from housing and schools. Recently the Head of Development Control at Redbridge Council chaired a meeting at Ilford Town Hall to explore whether a solution might be possible.

5. Although the other operators were prepared, in principle, to consider alternative sites suggested by local residents, both T-Mobile and Orange refused. T-Mobile also promised to erect their development outside the Bowls Club on Aldersbrook Road without delay. Local T-Mobile customers are expected to desert that company for other operators who are prepared to work with local residents to find a solution.

6. One of the alternative sites three operators agreed to consider is on Centre Road [about 300 metres away] where T-Mobile won a planning appeal and has already erected a mast and equipment cabin. Part of its justification for its Bowls Club site appeal was that it had been refused consent to put a mast on Centre Road. T-Mobile has refused to discuss why they now need both sites!!

7. Finally, although T-Mobile’s planning consent is for a mast for “2G” transmissions, T-Mobile have made no secret of their plan to immediately enlarge the mast and cabin for “3G” transmissions (without obtaining any consent from the Council). It is acknowledged that local reception of “2G” transmissions is adequate.

8. Higher power “3G” transmissions post-date the “Stewart Report” so their effect on human health, either from one mast or a cluster, has not been properly investigated.

9. The only benefits of “3G” transmissions (as compared to “2G”) are that they enable mobile users to send and view video clips and have faster access to the internet. As most people now have “2G” mobile phones telecom operators have had to think of new ways to make profits. The main purpose of “3G” is feared to be offering access to hardcore pornography.


Contact:
Elizabeth Canavan on 0208 530 2658
Alex Morton on 07970119793
Ian Wheeler on 07799898709
http://www.maststop.com

24th June 2006

By Richard Lyons

This is Local London

25.08.06

A group of Wallington residents are fighting moves to have their homes turned into a potential health risk without their consent after the property owners and a phone company agreed to erect an antennae.

The mobile phone company Hutchison 3G has struck a deal with landlord Playfield Properties to erect a mobile phone mast on a block of flats in the Albany, Woodcote Road.

According to current planning laws, the size of the proposed mast means it can be installed as long as the flat owners agree.

Steve Cunningham, chairman of the Albany Residents' Association, said: "We are worried about the health risk. We have two blocks of flats here and the other block already has a mast on it. continued...

"We are overloaded already without having another one. There should be more say for people who actually live in the area rather than it being forced upon them."

The proposed mast, which will be put on top of a five-story block, is less than four metres high meaning it is subject to very few planning restrictions.

Hutchison 3G has notified Sutton Council of the plans but there is nothing the local authority can do to stop it as long as the property owner agrees.

In a bid to prevent the mast being erected, the residents together with local councillors, Colin Hall and Jayne McCoy, have collected a petition of more than 100 signatures.

Councillor Hall said: "What local people are upset about is that the owners of the building haven't consulted them and neither has Hutchison 3G.

"The contract is between the mast company and the owners. Someone stands to make some money out of this but it won't be the residents who have to live with the noise and health worries the mast will create."

Gareth Coombes-Olney, corporate affairs manager for Ericsson, which is building the mast on behalf of Hutchison 3G, said residents had been informed of the plans by letter.

He added: "In this instance, it is a difficult situation in that the relevant legislation is quite clear. It can just go ahead as long as the owner of the land is happy and it complies with the planning requirements and we have written to the local authority."