World-News

A PLAYGROUP says plans for a 15 metre-high mobile phone mast yards from its site will "finish" it.

Drayton Playgroup in Stratford Road, Banbury, which has been running for more than 20 years, has opposed phone company O2's second attempt to put a mast on land close to Drayton School.

Supervisor Diane Bates, who knew nothing of the plans until a parent told her, said: "I think this could finish the playgroup. I think a lot of people will take their children out because they know there are possible health implications, especially fears over cancer and leukaemia.

"We might not find out for 15 or 20 years what effect these things have and they shouldn't be building masts in areas where there are children.
"My son goes to Drayton School and it worries me."

Drayton Playgroup, which has 45 children on its books, has now written to Cherwell District Council opposing the plan.

The mast will be disguised as a telegraph pole and shared between O2 and Hutchison 3G. It will be located on Oxfordshire County Council-owned land next to Trinity Close.

In January 2005 the Banbury Guardian reported plans by O2 to erect a mast nearby at the junction of Stratford Road and Warwick Road.

Parents were concerned over potential health risks from radiation, backed by Drayton School headteacher Richard Sutton and MP Tony Baldry. In the end 02 withdrew the application.

Mary Jenvey, of Powys Grove, who fought the plans last time round, said: "This will happen over my dead body; residents of Banbury will not let it happen.

"I know these companies need to put the masts somewhere but I can't believe how unethical they are doing it near a school and playgroup.

"Until it can be categorically proved there's no health risk they shouldn't be doing it. I have an eight-year-old son and I don't want this mobile phone mast going near my family."

Cherwell District Council says it cannot object to phone mast applications on health grounds, only for siting or appearance reasons.

The telecommunications application has been delegated to Cherwell District Council officers – meaning it cannot be debated by councillors – who must approve or object to the plans by July 5.

Angela Johnson, community liason officer for O2, said: "This is a really key site for coverage in the Banbury area and the mast has to be in a specific place to fit into our existing network.

"If there's any cause for concern it's with phones not masts, and having a mast nearby means power in phones will be far less. There is no evidence of any risk to health because phone masts are so low powered."

Omega this is not true. See under:
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Cancer+Cluster
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html

Mrs Jenvey replied: "Years ago they used to say smoking was good for you."

Just a few of Banburyshire's other mobile phone masts/antennae include: land north of Manor Farm, Bodicote, O2 and T-Mobile; Horton General Hospital, Vodafone and Cellnet; Banbury School, Ruskin Road, Energis Communications; Middleton Road,Hutchison 3G; Wildmere Road, BT Cellnet; Spital Farm Sewage Works, Thorpe Mead, BT and Cellnet; Sun View Farm, Southam Road, Vodafone; Yew Tree Farm, Bloxham, Vodafone, One2One (now T-Mobile); land south of Warmington, Vodafone; Hook Norton Brewery, Vodafone.

29 June 2006

All rights reserved © 2006 Johnston Press Digital Publishing.

http://www.banburyguardian.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=687&ArticleID=1596894

Take a look at the latest victory story.

Eileen O'Connor


I have typed this out. Not available on-line at http://www.prestontoday.co.uk

Margaret


Lancashire Evening Post
6th July 2006
Page 22

PROTEST VICTORY: Delight as council says no to phone giant's application

Mast bid is thrown out

Planners have thrown out a bid to build a phone mast on Grimsargh farmland.

Preston Council's planning committee unanimously turned down the application for the mast on Whittingham Lane.

Phone giants O2 said the mast, on land at Dixon's Farm, was necessary because of increased demand.

The company wanted to build a 20 metre lattice tower with three antennae and two equipment cabinets, surrounded by a fence.

Furious

But furious residents said the mast could affect their health and devalue their homes.

Concerns were also raised that it was close to a listed building.

Grimsargh and Haighton parish councils and Alston Lane Catholic Primary School raised objections, along with 148 local people. A 345-signed petition was also submitted.

Normally, the application would be determined by the officers, but it was called in by Counc Neil Cartwright.

A dozen members if the Grimsargh Mast Opposition Action Group were at the meeting to see the application be thrown out.

It was previously recommended for refusal by planners on the grounds of its damage to the visual amenity and that it could be "located in less environmentally damaging location".

Preston Council had asked the company to consider moving the mast behind a belt of trees, but this request was refused.

Herbert Wilcock, who lives less than a half-a-mile from the site said, " We're all really pleased our campaign was successful".

" We feel the council has listened to the strength of feeling on this issue. Hopefully, O2 will go away and not try to reapply somewhere else."

Angela Johnson, O2 North West spokesman, revealed the company will be looking for another suitable in the area for a mast.

She said, "We only build masts where they are needed."

"Our radio planner is going to see if it will work in another place. If it does, we will put in new application."

I am sending you the below for posting.

Best, Imelda, Cork


IRISH EXAMINER, THURSDAY, 06.07.2006

"FARMERS CONTINUE BLOCKADE AGAINST ESB LINE

by Eoin English

Defiant landowners vowed last night to continue their blockade against an ESB [Electricity Supply Board] power line despite the threat of massive legal bills. The Bantry Concerned Action Group (BCAG) said its members will continue to deny ESB crews access to over 20 farms in the area. The ESB workers, who have a court order allowing them access to land to erect a 14-kilometre power line to a wind farm, have been blocked from farmland since last Thursday. The BCAG was standing firm yesterday despite confirmation from the ESB that it is taking legal action against the landowners to recover the costs of having crews idle in the area since last week. Costs are estimated at up to 15,000 [euros] a day. Landowners were yesterday facing a bill of up to 60,000 [euros]. But BCAG spokesman Joe Burke said his members will not back down. "I don't give two hoots what the ESB say. That's just a threat," he said. "I'm not worried, and the other landowners aren't worried either. Even if it's 100,000 [euros], or 200,000 [euros] a day, my children are more important than that. "I'd never forgive myself that I didn't stand up and protect them. "They can take us to court. All I can do is explain to the judge that this is what the farmers here want." He made his comments as farmers from Waterford, Galway and Tipperary joined the protest. A number of other protesters, linked to the Rossport Five protests in Mayo last year, are also offering support. "


And in today's (Thurs., July 6, 2006) IRISH EXAMINER's "Local News" roundup column the following appears:

"RADIO MAST OBJECTIONS

Groups in Kenmare [Co Kerry] are strongly opposing the erection of a telecommunications mast at the local garda station. Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae said health and safety considerations were no being taken into account and there were schools, shops, hotels and private homes within 1 km of the structure."

http://www.invs.sante.fr/display/?doc=/publications/2005/saint_cyr_280105/index.html
http://www.next-up.org/pages/nouvellesdumonde61.php

http://next-up.org/pdf/Le_Canard_Enchaine_5_juillet_2006_Drome_de_drame.pdf

L'Affaire
http://www.next-up.org/divers/images_x44.php

A PUBLIC inquiry into a phone mast at Codnor has been scrapped, after T-Mobile withdrew its appeal.

An inquiry was due to take place to see if the phone company should be allowed to keep its monopole mast at land near the market place.

The phone company originally launched its appeal on grounds of non-determination after Amber Valley Borough Council didn't make a decision on the future of the mast within an eight-week timescale.

At a meeting earlier this month, councillors on Amber Valley Borough Council's planning board decided to press ahead with an inquiry despite warnings from senior council officers that the council could lose the case and land the taxpayer with huge costs. Within days of this decision by the council, T-Mobile withdrew its appeal.

However, T-Mobile's withdrawal does not automatically mean that the phone mast will come down. At the council meeting senior legal officers advised councillors that even if T-Mobile lost the appeal, they could still exercise permitted development rights, thus allowing the mast to remain.

Cliff Jones from Jessop Street, Codnor is one of a number of residents who has been fighting to have the mast removed. Cliff said: "I am pleased that T-Mobile has withdrawn their appeal, however, we just hope that this means that the mast has now got to come down. I would like to thank the councillors who made a stand and went against officer's recommendations and called for the public inquiry."

By Stephen Sinfield
29 June 2006

All rights reserved © 2006 Johnston Press Digital Publishing.

http://www.ripleytoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=797&ArticleID=1595738

--------

However, T-Mobile's withdrawal does not automatically mean that the phone mast will come down. At the council meeting senior legal officers advised councillors that even if T-Mobile lost the appeal, they could still exercise permitted development rights, thus allowing the mast to remain.

Isn't this a ludicrous situation where, although this Council has stood firm and forced T Mob to withdraw - they could still keep the mast in place. I just wonder who is running this country!

Sylvia


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

Jul 5 2006

By Richard Freeman-Wallace, The Journal

The Telecommunications Masts (Planning Control) Bill had its second reading in March this year, and has since been adjourned until October.

Phone masts, in the same way as other buildings and developments, are subject to planning controls. It is a controversial area and many applications face objections, the numbers of which rise significantly if it is planned to locate them in or near a residential area, school or hospital.

Health and safety concerns come to the fore if a mast is likely to be near a home or community services.

Legislation going through Parliament proposes changes to address health and safety issues.

It introduces the concept of a "precautionary principle statement", which means every application must contain a statement on the possible effects on health and the environment of installing the equipment.

In the same way, each application would need to be accompanied by a "Beam of Greatest Intensity Certificate", providing information about exposure to radio frequency radiation. The legislation would amend the Electronic Communications Code so operators would not be able to obtain a court order to use land to install equipment if that land was used for educational or medical facilities.

Operators require a "wayleave" to place equipment on land. However, this can be granted by the occupiers and owners of interests in land, which include tenants.

An occupying tenant can therefore enter into a wayleave agreement with an operator that will bind the landlord. Landowners need to ensure a tenant's lease contains a provision requiring the landlord's consent before entering into such an agreement.

If you, the landlord, originally gave permission for a wayleave, but want to get rid of it at the end of the term of the lease, you might be in for an unpleasant surprise.

Once again, if the operator does not agree to leave, the landlord's only recourse for removal of the apparatus is to make a court application and explain why monetary compensation is not adequate.

Bear in mind that when granting a wayleave, they can stick for an indefinite period on your land. The new legislation's inclusion of easier removal of masts from schools, hospitals and related services is the first sign of a softening in this area.

As a landlord you should be aware of the value of your land to the mobile phone mast operators. It is much harder for operators to find urban sites, and they are more than likely to pay premiums for them.

You should also take care to limit liability for damage caused by operation of the equipment.

We wait to see what the potential impact of the new legislation will be when it is heard again this autumn.

Richard Freeman-Wallace is head of property at law firm Watson Burton in Newcastle.

© owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2006

http://tinyurl.com/rpdhn