World-News

Mobile phone mast campaigners in the South have formed a new watchdog group to monitor planning applications.

Members of the newly-formed Wessex Registry of Active Masts have vowed to keep an eye all new mast locations across Hampshire, Dorset and Surrey.

MPs, councillors and school governors have signed up to be kept informed.

Organiser Karen Barratt, who led a campaign against a mast in Winchester, said the group would be "a much stronger watchdog than any individual".

'Improved consultation'

"This is all about communication. We do not want to be kept in the dark about where current masts are sited or where future masts may be required," she said.

"We will not be telling anyone what they should do. If people want to raise objections to any specific site it is their choice but they are entitled to be properly informed and consulted."

The group holds a list of campaigners, politicians and community leaders to whom it will send out details of any new mast applications it is told of.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/5069054.stm

Published: 2006/06/12 05:31:05 GMT

© BBC MMVI

--------

WRAM: Wessex Registry of Active Masts

From Karen Barratt

Caroline St. Leger Davey (Winchester), Simon Preedy (Basingstoke) and I have set up a monitoring group to try and assess the mast situation in our general area (Hampshire and beyond). I attach a letter which explains the thinking behind the idea. So far we have seven Hampshire MPs who have asked to be on our contacts list. We intend to have email groups eg planning councillors, schools governors and residents so we can target information about masts in the area as we receive it. We will be sending the 'invitation' letter to MPs in adjacent counties at some point. We'll see how it goes. There will probably be something on BBC News Online (South) in the next day or two and BBC South / Radio Solent may cover this week.


From Karen Barratt - Winchester phone mast campaigner.

As some of you know I have been active in the high-profile Byron Avenue phone mast campaign for the last five years. I have been in regular contact throughout that time with other campaigners throughout the UK, including Simon Preedy in Basingstoke. Since 2004 my fellow Winchester campaigner Caroline St. Leger Davey and I have also been volunteers with the national campaign group Mast Sanity (www.mastsanity.org). Mast Sanity gives advice on a range of issues relating to telecommunications applications and currently has around 2000 registrations from groups and individuals who have been helped. This service is most effective when people make contact early in the process ie before a formal planning application has been submitted. Too often people do not discover what is going on until time for objection has almost run out.

For this reason, I feel that there is a need to establish regional groups to exchange information and monitor the situation on mast siting in given areas. While the main problem lies with Government planning legislation there is also great inconsistency among local planning authorities in the way they handle applications and the extent to which they involve the public in the process. The enormous proliferation of mast protest groups has come about because communities are not given information or the opportunity to participate at an early stage and consequently end up feeling angry and disenfranchised.

Simon, Caroline and I are setting up a monitoring group Wessex Registry of Active Masts (WRAM) to provide a focus for information about the location of masts and the performance of local planning authorities. Initially, we want as many people as possible to be on our email list so that we can disseminate information to the wider community. The only commitment we want from 'supporters' is to let us know about mast activity in their local areas. A number of local MPs have welcomed the initiative and hope to be on the list.

This is all about communication. We do not want to be kept in the dark about where current masts are sited or where future masts may be required. We will not be telling anyone what they should do. If people want to raise objections to any specific site it is their choice but they are entitled to be properly informed and consulted. Operators have a Code of Practice (the so-called 'Ten Commitments') but weaker local planning authorities let them get away with murder. WRAM can be a much stronger watchdog than any individual can.

If you want to be on the contacts list - email mail.wram@ntlworld.com Please include your name, address and tel no. If you know which planning authority covers your area, please tell us. If you prefer not to give personal info, then at least include your postcode so we have some idea which areas we're getting feedback from.

WRAM - FURTHER INFORMATION

Why Wessex ?

There are many phone mast campaign groups in the southern region. We initially thought of making this group a Hampshire wide initiative but it seemed a pity to exclude campaigners just over the county border who we've been in touch with eg Farnham, Surrey and Bournemouth, Dorset. Wessex gives greater flexibility as a geographical definition.

Why be on the email list ?

We would like people to get in touch if they receive any communication from telecom operators or their local council about a proposed mast. We can then let everyone on the list know and they can forward the details to those who may be affected by the particular application. That way there is less chance of mast applications in 'your' area sneaking in without anyone knowing. The current Code of Practice if adhered to requires the operators to carry out pre-application consultation with interested individuals or establishments. You are in a better position to resist a mast if you have input at this stage. Remember, applications for masts under 15 metres, have to be decided in a 56-day time schedule. If they are not or the council fail to inform the operator of its decision in time, the operator can go ahead anyway.

Note: a BBC South investigation has recently discovered that in its television region alone 68 masts have the go-ahead because councils missed the deadline for notification. A recent attempt to introduce a Private Members Bill on telecommunications planning legislation included a recommendation that all masts should go through a full planning process. This would have removed the 56-day loophole. The Government blocked this bill.

Who are the operators?

There are five commercial operators. Four of them (Orange, Vodafone, T-Mobile, O2) already have 2G networks. They are now rolling out 3G. Hutchison 3G ('3') by definition only has a 3G network. In addition, Airwave O2 (a subsidiary of mmO2) is rolling out the TETRA system for the police and other emergency services and Netrail has its own GSM mast network. This adds up to eleven separate mast networks.

What is 3G ?

Third generation (3G) phones carry much more data than 2G (simply 'talk and text') and therefore require greater capacity. The option of one big mast sited away from populated area as an alternative to smaller masts in residential areas is no longer viable. If you want 3G phones you have to accept that many more masts much closer together are required.

How many masts are there now and how many more are to come?

We often hear that there are '45,000 existing masts.' In fact, this figure refers to mast sites. (Mike Dolan, Director of the Mobile Operators' Association has confirmed this) Any one site might accommodate all of the operators and dozens of antennae. Just look at the landscape (high rise buildings, water towers etc festooned with equipment.)

The only certain fact is that even if you are not threatened with a mast now you may well be in the near future !

TV SERIES

Are you someone that's fighting for a cause they believe in? Someone who's not afraid to take on the establishment? Someone who manages to create a stir, drum up support and tackle important issues? Someone who's concerned about environmental, eco or community issues anywhere in the UK?

Is a supermarket planning to expand the car park into your child's play area in the park or are your local butcher’s under threat from a coffee chain invasion? Are you running a campaign to stop your neighbours driving their 4 x 4’s to school or are you trying to make people in your area more aware of sustainable energy?

DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN SOME WAY?

If you are running a campaign anywhere in the UK then we would like to hear from you.

We are looking for people to take part in a major TV series looking at how individuals can change the world we live in.

Please email Emma Jones at emma.jones@shinelimited.com or ring 0207 985 7078

http://churches.qs4.com/
http://www.aerials.cofe.anglican.org/


Angie

--------

Telecoms masts deal for 5,000 churches
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-5-334333,00.html

http://www.bumblebeeconservationtrust.co.uk/gardening_for_bumblebees.htm

If anyone has a garden and wants to help the bees then this site has a list
of the British wild flowers that one can plant to attract the bees.

Does anyone know of a similar list for birds?

Sarah

The big concern here is tyre dust; ignored too long, and worse than exhaust particulates.

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=543
http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw439.htm


Industry response
http://www.dunloptyres.co.uk/dunlop/environmental/


Andy

There's an article in the Mail on Sunday today (page 43) which says:

..Teachers are always saying pupils would do better in their schoolwork if they spent less time playing computer games and watching tv. Now, one headmaster has proved it - by going tot he homes of errant pupils and confiscating their electronic equipment. And results have shot up at New Woodlands School in Bromley, Kent, since Duncan Harper introduced the "seizure" policy. "If a child is coming in tired, lethargic and grumpy we often find that it's because they've been watching tv or playing games until God knows what hour", Mr. Harper said last night. "So we go round and take the quipment until we've seen a definity improvement in the child".

Mr. Harper, who has been head of the school for 12 years, gets the parents' permission before making his surprise doorstep visit. He admitted some pupils were a "little unhappy" to see their possessions disappearing out of the door..................... ..............................................

The shock tactics have already had a beneficial effect - a report by Government inspectors in March rated the school as outstanding. Other schools around the country are now studying the scheme. New Woodlands is a special school for children with emotional or behavioural problems. It has 65 pupils aged betwen five and 11, but a £4.5 million expansion will see it take in 48 further pupils aged 11 to 14 by September next year.

........... "I've been working here for 12 years and we've seen a definite growth in younger kids not coping in school. In our opinion there's a link between that and children being allowed a long time on Xboxes and the internet, with young children playing very inappropriate adult games. There's a problem with concentration and often they present as having Asperger's (a type of autism) when that actually isn't the problem. We're quite old-fashioned in our approach"

Sean Neil, a school behavioural expert at Warwick University, said the scheme was a rare example of a school's sovereignty" reaching into a pupil's home to tackle problems at their root cause.

............."Ministers are always stressing the rights of pupils and parents as "consumers", but this is an example of the school saying it has rights, too."

AND......."do you think the head is taking things too far? Join the debate at..... http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk


Well, this is interesting, as I bet he won't have Wifi, or masts near this school! Wish more schools would take the effects of EMFs, masts, dirty electricity, electrosmog....etc..... more seriously and consider the welfare of their pupils.

Regards,

Vivienne

..in yesterdays Sussex Argus by of all people a Brighton Tory Councillor, Lynda Hyde.

I've emailed most Councillors re phone masts etc for years - this is the first time such a strong letter has been written by a Councillor.

See below

Gary


We can't say no to the masts

Kevin Haestler of Portslade is concerned for the health of his children if a 12.5m mast and base station is erected outside his house (to be precise 0.7 metres away and that is NOT a misprint) and asks why the planning system cannot refuse such applications on health grounds.

The reason is the Government has taken away the rights of local authorities to refuse applications on health grounds.

This is despite the Governments own Stewart Report which calls for a precautionary approach to the positioning of masts.

Masts of 15 metres and above are presented to the planning committee for a decision and many times such applications are refused.

However, if a telecommunications company appeals against the decision, it is then nearly always granted by the appeal inspector.

Again this is because councils are not permitted to refuse the application on health grounds.

Moreover, a mast which does not exceed 15 metres needs no planning consent at all.

A telecommunications operator may erect a mast under "permitted development rights".

The Government speaks of giving a "voice to the people" and then deliberately presses the mute button so they do not have a voice.

Perhaps I should also mention the Government sold licences to telecommunications companies for the magnificent sum of £23 billion.

Could this be the reason powers have been removed from local authorities?

Lynda Hyde

If ayone wants to write to Lynda Hyde her email is lynda.hyde@brighton-hove.gov.uk

Or send as reply to The Argus letters@theargus.co.uk

--------

I empathise with the gist of what Cllr Hyde has to say about central government banning the right to turn down such mobile phone installations on health grounds. She is also right in questioning whether this blanket ban has anything to do with the sale of 3G licences for the sum of circa £23 billion. I feel bound to comment on a couple of her other statements, however. This is not to criticise but merely to set the record straight.

It is quite true to say that masts 15 metres or more in height require full planning permission and that applications for such development are often refused. However, it is not correct to say that in the event of appeal, permission is almost always granted. Nor is it true to say that masts not exceeding 15 metres in height require no consent at all.

Ground based installations not exceeding 15 metres in height constitute permitted development through the provisions of Part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) and, other than in exceptional circumstances, applications are subject to the prior approval process which, as successive planning ministers have assured us, is a different procedure from planning permission in name only.

As with applications for planning permission, applications for prior approval are frequently refused but it does not follow that, in the event of appeal, approval is almost always granted by planning inspectors. The figures over the past five years indicate that over 30% of appeals against local planning authorities' decisions to refuse applications for masts are dismissed.

I accede that at present we cannot say no to masts on health grounds alone, albeit in my view it is only a matter of time before a causal link is established between the radiation associated with mobile phone technology and adverse health effects. Moreover, it is true to say that government policy and legislation in respect of mast development is very heavily weighted in favour of the operators and against the tenets of local democracy. That said, and despite the difficulties face by communities, there are several material planning considerations which can, and should, be deployed against applications to site mobile phone installations insensitively.

I will send a response based on the above text to the Argus.

David

Well this is interesting, the England's Parliamentary Party. Does anyone know anything about them?

Sandi


Legal warning over phone mast decisions

Jun 2 2006

Chester Chronicle

A POLITICAL group has warned councillors they could be indicted for corporate manslaughter.

England's Parliamentary Party (EPP) collaborated with a pressure group called Masts Away from Schools Homes and Hospitals (MASHH), in a letter to the leader of Chester City Council, Paul Roberts (Lib Dem, Farndon).

The correspondence said if anyone was found to have been killed by radiation from a phone mast, criminal charges could be brought.

It said: 'England's Parliamentary Party is totally opposed to the location of these masts in populated areas and, hereby, formally puts you on notice that you may, as part of the decision-making process, be indicted for corporate manslaughter should a fatality occur resulting from illness deemed to be attributable to the emissions from these masts.

'You owe a duty of care to the people within the boundaries of this council and your decisions with regard to the location of telecommunications masts could breach that duty of care.

'As a result of that breach, should it cause a person's death, the law of negligence must be applied; if so, whether that breach of duty is so bad as to amount, when viewed objectively, to gross negligence, it will warrant a criminal conviction.'

Malcolm Harle, of MASHH, said his group was formed after residents fought against the siting of a mast in Westminster Park, close to a nursery.

He said: 'We are very concerned with the health implications but the Government at national and local level aren't listening. We realised pretty early on we needed political help.'

Cllr Roberts said: 'They are making some disgraceful threats without a shred of legal justification. In any planning decision, we listen to the best advice from Government and other professionals and we will always follow that advice.'

--------

MASHH see http://www.mashh.com

In a toxicological sense the environmental pollution by electromagnetic fields is cause (trigger and or part of chains of events) of damage to health. The chains of events would not happen if the link caused directly and or indirectly by the effects of the electromagnetic fields to the human being as a whole would lack. The health damage can be reversible (example: headache from a mobile phone) and irreversible (example: changes of DNA) can lead to or contribute to death (examples: Ena Bambrough in Newcastle (2001), suicides (known to have happened in France), cancer (changes of DNA)). In these cases indeed the operators of wireless systems, the owners of the systems, the owners of premises, the authorities are responsible. They consciously have added to the environmental pollution by electromagnetic fields, causing the link. They had information and could have decided to prevent the pollution by choosing the alternative of a wired system.

Frans