World-News

Wie die Konsumenten mit Gesundheitsrisiken im Mobilfunk umgehen
http://194.209.226.170/pdfarchiv/bund/2006/06/08/13111Wirtschaft20060608_1.pdf

--------

UMTS-Antennen stören Wohlbefinden nicht? Schweizer Replikation widerlegt TNO-Studie?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/2130307/

Hi David

Your letter was published in todays Argus as below under the large heading Local councils can say no to unwanted phone masts.

The letter was so different to the one you posted to MS I'm wondering did you send a different version or was it heavily edited?

Best

Gary


I note Councillor Lynda Hydes observations about mobile phone base stations (Letters June 2) and empathise with what she says about central Government banning the right to turn down such installations on health grounds.

She is also right to ask whether this blanket ban has anything to do with the sale of 3G licences for in the region of £23 billion.

However, I feel bound to comment on a couple of her other statements. This is not to criticise but merely to set the record straight.

It is 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 that masts which do not exceed 15 metres in height require no consent at all.

Ground based installations not exceeding 15 metres in height do, indeed, constitute permitted development but applications are subject to the prior approval process which, as successive planning ministers have assured us, differs from planning permission in name only.

As with applications for planning permission, applications for prior approval are frequently refused but, in the event of appeal, it does not follow that approval is almost always granted by planning inspectors.

Figures for the past five years show that more than 30% of appeals against local planning authorities' decisions to refuse applications for masts are dismissed.

I concede we cannot say no to masts at present 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, Government policy and legislation in respect of mast development is heavily weighted in favour of the operators and against the tenets of local democracy.

Nevertheless, 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.

David

THIS tiny creature could be the only thing capable of toppling plans for a massive mobile phone mast in Horley - after the government gave developers the green light. Residents fighting against the building of a 50ft O2 mobile phone mast, on the junction of Limes Avenue and Balcombe Road, have found an unlikely saviour in the form of a Great crested newt. The small amphibians – spotted in the area a number of times – are a protected species meaning that any development close to its nesting site would need a license from the Department of Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The controversial mast is a "permitted development", which means planning permission has already been granted by central government under the Town and Country Planning Order (1995). But the presence of the crested critter could scupper the telecommunication giant's plans unless strict conservation rules are satisfied.

Full story in the Horley Observer

07 June 2006

All rights reserved © 2006 Johnston Press Digital Publishing.

http://www.crawleytoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=498&ArticleID=1547052

--------

What a great story! Saving the Great Crested Newt from the nasty 02 mast. I am all for protecting animals and wildlife.

Hey, I have just had a thought............ if ill health around masts in humans is rare enough to be non-existent, according to the powers that be, then can't those of us affected claim protected rights as endangered species? I'm off to DEFRA to see what the score is.............well I do live in a sleepy ruralised parish. If that doesn't work I'll write to the HPA. I am sure M Clark would love another letter.

Sandi


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

Jun 6 2006

A DECISION to refuse permission for an extension to a mobile phone mast at a Burton Hastings farm has been overturned by the planning inspectorate.

Hutchison 3G UK applied to extend the existing mast, which overlooks the M69 on green-belt land owned by Shelford Farm, off Lutterworth Road, by five metres in September last year.

Councillors on Rugby Borough Council's planning committee refused the application at a meeting two months later.

But following an appeal, that decision has been overturned.

* An application to build a 15m mobile phone mast at Brooklyn Skoda Garage, Hillmorton Road, Rugby, has been turned down by borough councillors.

owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2006

http://tinyurl.com/pbg64

Verizon Communications Inc. will pay almost $49 million to 12,326 current and former female employees as part of a landmark class-action lawsuit alleging pregnancy discrimination.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/060606WA.shtml

Jun 6 2006

By Paul Rhys

WORRIED parents have spoken out over a mobile phone mast they fear will affect their kids' health.

Neighbours in Delverton Road, Walworth, claim they were left in the dark over plans to erect Orange communications equipment next to their homes.

Mum-of-three Jackie Mitchell, 44, said she was afraid to let kids Daniel, 18, Ben, 15, and Luke,five, near her garden wall, which is next to the installation on the roof of the adjacent Rose O'Grady's pub.

She said: "I was told they were just doing some repairs, so I let them put scaffolding up in my garden. I didn't know they were putting in a phone mast.

"I've read reports saying they cause leukaemia, cancer, brain damage - the lot. Everyone round here is worried sick.

"We just want to know why we weren't told about it and why it's been put up right next to houses where everyone has kids."

Her friend Angela Munian, 45, is worried about the effect on her daughter Alex, two, and son Mason, 11.

She said: "They should have notified us.No one round here has a clue what's going on.

"We're all frightened to let the kids out. You don't know what sort of radiation is coming off that thing."

Rose O'Grady's landlady Delia Henderson, 64, said that because she was just a leaseholder she had no control over the mast being built, and brewery Enterprise Inns received planning permission two years ago.

She said: "I'm not involved in the dispute - there's absolutely nothing I can do.

"Orange has told me there's more danger using a mobile than being near the mast.

"Half the time you read that they're a problem, half the time they're completely safe."

Orange spokeswoman Jacqueline Sibanda said: "People have absolutely nothing to worry about.

"Phone masts have become stigmatised but there's been exhaustive research and no problems have emerged. We also comply with World Health Organisation guidelines on transmissions.

Omega read "Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?" under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

"There's a lot of misinformation but hopefully the message will soon get out that this technology - which has been in use for years - is safe."

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

Enterprise Inns were unavailable for comment as we went to press.

owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2006

http://tinyurl.com/lm2d4

Güllen ist überall
http://www.gigaherz.ch/1030

A MOBILE phone mast on a South Shore school is to come down.

Bosses at Arnold School have confirmed the aerial on top of the school on Lytham Road will be switched off by July next year.

The school has decided not to renew the contract with mobile phone giant Orange following concern from parents and residents.

As revealed in The Gazette on Friday, Orange is seeking planning permission to place a similar mast on Highfield Road.

Residents living close to the site, Moulton's Printers, have launched a campaign to block the plans and are collecting names on a petition to Blackpool Council.

They fear masts are dangerous and could have health implications for the community.

They are particularly concerned the antennae on the roof of the printer's building would be next to a children's playground and close to a nursery and homes.

Pat McCarthy, bursar at Arnold School, said while the school did not have any concerns about the safety of the mast it had decided it was not in the school's best interests for it to remain.

He said: "Our current contract expires in July 2007 and as part of an ongoing review by the governing council it was decided not to renew the contract. We have given Orange the required notice.

"Some parents were unhappy with the mast so although the governing council was satisfied the mast itself is safe, in the end they decided the school would be better off without it."

Coun Susan Fowler said: "It is great news that the one at Arnold is coming down. The safety of such masts has not yet been proven and until it is we should not be putting them in built-up areas."

05 June 2006

All rights reserved © 2006 Johnston Press Digital Publishing.

http://www.blackpooltoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=62&ArticleID=1545157

Sunday, 04 June 2006

Mobile phone company O2 is being allowed to put up a mast on top of a South Lakes church.

They have been given permission by South Lakeland District Council’s planning committee to put the communications mast on top of St Thomas’s church in Milnthorpe.

Some residents have raised concerns about radiation causing high levels of pollution in the area.

But planners said the company had assured them they would comply with international guidelines.

Omega read "Base Stations, operating within strict national and international Guidelines, do not present a Health Risk?" under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/771911/

http://www.lakelandradio.co.uk/cms/content/view/6452/1/

A campaign to stop a mobile phone mast being built at a college sports ground is finally over but residents now have a new fight on their hands.

Government inspector Richard Ogierok rejected T-Mobile's appeal for consent to put a 30ft flagpole-style mast at Brasenose College's ground off Abingdon Road, in Oxford. Residents celebrated their victory but are now battling to stop a mast being built at the Marlborough House pub on the corner of Marlborough Road and Western Road, close to St Ebbe's Primary School.

T-Mobile has permitted development rights and does not need planning permission for the pub mast. continued...

The Chester Arms in Chester Street, East Oxford, is also set to have a T-Mobile mast.

Frances Townend, who lives in Chilswell Road, South Oxford, said: "I am absolutely delighted the mast at Brasenose has been stopped. But now residents have a new fight on their hands appealing against the one in Western Road, which is right opposite St Ebbe's School."

Planning inspector Mr Ogier rejected T-Mobile's appeal to put a mast at Brasenose because he said it would be inappropriately sited within the Green Belt.

He said: "It has not been demonstrated that very special circumstances exist sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm that would be done to the purposes and character of the Green Belt."

T-Mobile first applied to put up the mast in Brasenose College sports ground in 2004.

The move was rejected, but the decision was annulled following administrative blunders.

Consent was only given because T-Mobile was not told of Oxford City Council's decision within the Government deadline of 56 working days.

The telecommunications firm later agreed to reapply for permission after talks with council chiefs.

A second application was rejected by councillors in November last year, followed by an appeal and the Government inspector's rejection. Labour group leader Bob Price, councillor for Hinksey Park, said it was great news but added: "The mast in Marlborough Road is a big issue for us still.

"It didn't require planning permission and it crept through without anybody knowing about it. There are lots of concerns in health terms and the visual impact on the pub."

A T-Mobile spokesman said the masts proposed for the two pubs were only in the planning stages and the firm was keen to work with residents.

He said: "We are disappointed with the outcome (at Brasenose) as we worked hard to come up with the right design for the area to be as environmentally acceptable as possible.

But he warned: "As for the future we are looking at our options. The problem is we have to provide a service for this area."

© Copyright 2001-2006 Newsquest Media Group

http://www.oxfordmail.net/display.var.782208.0.new_mast_fight.php

--------

I love this one! The LPA misses the 56-day deadline for a decision on prior
approval and thus approval is deermed - the LPA (now guilty of
maladministration) asks T-Mobile to be the good guys and reapply - the
operator does so and the application is refused - T-Mobile then go to
appeal, which is dismissed.

David


From Mast Sanity/Mast Network