Together Against Masts Notifications

[Mitch]

Hi All,

Together Against Mast members are now working towards raising awareness amongs residents who are situated near future planned telecommunication masts.

We are producing TAM notifications, and this is the first one below. Tomorrow (Sat/28th Jan) we will be leafleting residents in the area of this new O2 mast planned in the Manchester Road area.

Best Mitch

TOGETHER AGAINST MASTS (TAM)
NOTIFICATION OF FORTHCOMING
O2 TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST

TAM was established in 2000 and we have grown steadily and now have in excess of 4000 members in the Burnley and Pendle areas.
We are dedicated in striving to change the dangerous technology inflicted upon us from the Mobile Phone Technology. Hundreds of Scientific Studies produced by Independent Scientists from all around the World together with countless reports of people suffering adverse health effects attributed to living close to a mobile phone mast convince us that our aims are fully justified. The Government claim that such accounts cannot be taken seriously as they are purely anecdotal. However, we say that there are so many such reports that are identical, any suggestion that there is little basis for these cannot be correct. Added to this is the injustice produced by the Government’s guidelines, that are strongly biased in favour of the phone operator must be opposed, particularly as the rules in Scotland do not allow most of these unfair practices.
Independent Scientists have also shown a safe power , which would safeguard the health of the population. When tested it was found that the phones worked perfectly well outside, but would not operate inside buildings or cars. As they are banned in cars and a nuisance for many people when used inside public buildings, we see nothing wrong with this.

PLANNING PERMISSION FOR A 3G POLE MOUNTED TRI BAND ANTENNAE MAST (total height 13.9 metres) IS CURRENTLY BEING REQUESTED BY O2, TO BE LOCATED ON:
Phoenix Engineering, Unit 1A, Summit Works, Manchester Road, Burnley, Lancashire BB11 5HG.
LETTERS OF OBJECTION SHOULD BE SENT TO BURNLEY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, QUOTING REF CMR/NOT/2006/0015 BEFORE 6th February 2006
Any residents wishing to hear more on the dangers of Telecommunication Masts, and how you can protest against the siting of this Mast near you, You can phone Together Against Masts on 01282 771635.

[michele cryer]

Hi Mitch...what time you planning on doing the leafletting? Do you want me to come and help?

[Mitch]

Soz mate - missed this prior to going out.

Here's photos of the site of planned new O2 mast - residents in houses near the Mast are currently leafleting the area and writing letters, they'll also be speaking at the council meeting. Watch out for the date and time of the council meeting!



(the mast will protrude 7.3m (some of it will be inside the building) up from one of the triangle roof.





Demos and other ideas to stop this mast will be put to next TAM meeting - Wednesday, 8th Feburary 2006, 7.30pm.

Cheers Mitch

[michele cryer]

Don't worry Mitch, I forgot you had to make visits after the leafletting anyway, so was a good job I wasn't around!

Thanks for the photos, and please remind me nearer the time of the next meeting, as I should be able to make it...

[gary]

Well done with the leafleting mitch..
Did you see any site notice?

DETAILS

• Deadline for objections is now perceived to be Mon 6th Feb 2006
  
• Planning Application Nº: NOT/2006/0015
  
• Statutory Expiry date: 01/03/2006
  
• Target Date for Decision: 24/02/2006
  

More Planning Application Details can be found at...
www.burnley.gov.uk/site/scripts/planning_details.php?id=10051

Below shows the proposed site and the nearest existing mast which should be shared. There is no beam of intensity submitted so the 300 metre radius is a guesstimate.



The photos below were taken on Friday 27th Jan.

Below shows just how close the proposed mast will be to the surrounding residents...

---

Below shows the approx location, pic taken from outside pub up road...


Click below to see a front elevation of the mast from Burnley Councils website...
www.burnley.gov.uk/downloads/06_0015_proposed_elevations.pdf

[Mitch]

Cheers Gary, Many thanks for those superb photos showing more clearly where this planned mast will be.

Regarding Notification - Residents in the area are stressing that they have seen NO notifcation flyers from the Council for the Mast. One resident lives directly outside a telephone pole where the Council used to put up notifications - but they have seen NOTHING!!

They are stressing this in their letters of objection to the Council. The ethos of 'Best Value' in local government stresses CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC. Clearly they are NOT consulting local residents, and this will no doubt be raised by the nominated speakers at the Council meeting!

Check with TAM chair for further details - I'm sure residents would appreciate any help offered with leafleting and wot not this week from you.

Also, on the 8th Feb TAM meeting reckon we could raise the idea of a demo outside the site.

Best wishes.

Mitch

[gary]

The deadline for objections is the 6th Feb any comments appearing after this date may be ignored. An emergency meeting could be held before this date to gauge public opinion.

If there's a local action group they should approach the landowner, otherwise ..

Mitch, if you send me your email address I'll forward you details of revised plan and new info thats arisen regarding call ins for Burnley council..
email address is [e-mail]

gary

[Mitch]

Hi Gary,

The Landowner/Phoenix Engineering owner has been contacted - and contact made with builder of new nearby new house builds.

Both revealed some interesting facts - give TAM chair a quick call for the full outline - unfortunately landowner appears to have already signed and there are reasons why he needs the money.

Limited time available for public meeting prior to the 6th-but if you've got some time to set up??

Could be more important at this stage to support at council meeting (as per Walverden campaign), filling the town hall with supporters.

TAM chair may have done more visits - give him a ring yeah for details. The meeting we had with residents on Saturday was inspiring - they are leafletting widely.

Best Mitch

[Mitch]

Hi Everyone,

Residents near to the planned O2 mast on Phoenix Engineering have been leafletting widely and writing letters.

Everyone can help with this campaign by writing letters or sending emails of objection to Burnley Planning department Quoting ref:
REF CMR/NOT/2006/0015
PLANNED 3G POLE MOUNTED TRI BAND O2 ANTENNAE MAST ON Phoenix Engineering, Unit 1A, Summit Works, Manchester Road, Burnley, Lancashire BB11 5HG.

Burnley Planning & Environmental Services Department details:
Planning and Environment Services - Planning
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Planning and Environment Services - Planning
Address: Burnley Borough Council, PO Box 29, Parker Lane, Burnley, Lancashire, BB11 2DT.

Also, letters of objection can also be sent to the owner of the building to the following address:
Phoenix Engineering, Unit 1A, Summit Works, Manchester Road, Burnley, Lancashire BB11 5HG.
Owner: Roger Pilling
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

This is an opportunity to express your firm support for those local residents fighting against this Mast.

Lets create a strong and active residents' campaign against Masts in Burnley and Pendle, and support each other!

Here's letters I've sent to both of the above, and for further assistance and advice in the wording of letters check out:
www.mastsanity.org

Cheers everyone, best Mitch

..................................
TO: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURNLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: PLANNING APPLICATION .REF CMR/NOT/2006/0015.

ERECTION OF TELECOMMUNICATION MAST ON Phoenix Engineering, Unit 1A, Summit Works, Manchester Road, Burnley, Lancashire BB11 5HG

I write in objection to the proposed installation of an O2 telecommunication mast on Phoenix Engineering, Unit 1A, Summit Works, Manchester Road, Burnley, Lancashire BB11 5HG. The siting of this Mast is located near approximately 200 residential homes in a 300 metre radius around the planned MAST. I therefore urge Burnley Borough Council 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.

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 emitted from the proposed development may affect the health of residents. As such I urge you in accordance with the provisions of para 29 of PPG8 and attach considerable weight to the fear that the majority of local residents have in relation to this proposed development. These fears and concerns are, and will in my submission affect the quality of local life, and therefore have a detrimental effect upon the amenity of the area.

The Stewart Report recommended that exclusion zones should be 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. (such as in this case with many residential homes located nearby, plus new homes currently being built adjacent to the Phoenix Engineering site!)

I also take this opportunity to draw your attention to the factors listed in PPG8 Annex 1 para 13 that may involve siting, particularly

THE SITE IN RELATION TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, and the close proximity of this MAST to residential homes.

I urge you to refuse permission for the above reasons.

Yours sincerely

Mitch
Together Against Masts Co-ordinator (TAM)
........................................
ATTENTION OF: ROGER PILLING/OWNER, Phoenix Engineering, Unit 1A, Summit Works, Manchester Road, Burnley, Lancashire BB11 5HG

Dear Mr Pilling,

RE: REF CMR/NOT/2006/0015

PLANNED 3G POLE MOUNTED TRI BAND O2 ANTENNAE MAST ON Phoenix Engineering, Unit 1A, Summit Works, Manchester Road, Burnley, Lancashire BB11 5HG.

I am writing to express the concerns of both Together Against Masts (TAM) members and those of local residents over the above referenced Telecommunication Mast planned to be sited on Phoenix Engineering. We understand that a planned O2 3G Mast is to be sited on Phoenix Engineering, a building in your control and ownership.

Local Residents near to Phoenix Engineering and Together Against Mast Members (a local campaign in the Burnley and Pendle Area which has nearly 4000 members), wish to express their concerns to you over the detrimental impact they believe the installation and/or equipment is having on the health of themselves and other occupants of the community as well as on their properties.

To summarise those concerns of our Together Against Mast Members and local residents living near Phoenix Engineering - concerns include:

cancerous afflictions including leukaemia, brain tumours, breast cancer, cervical cancer, and pre-cancerous tumours;
brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer's) and epilepsy;
unexplained severe skin rashes;
unexplained low white blood cell counts;
hormonal deficiencies and early menopause;
extreme fluctuations in blood pressure;
heart attacks including heart rhythm disorders, and strokes;
susceptibility to infection;
numerous instances of headaches, migraines, dizziness, inner agitation, chronic exhaustion, faintness, tingling sensations, electric shocks, tinitus, behavioural disorders (e.g. attention deficit disorder, ADD) lack of concentration and sleep disturbance;
Nervous and connective tissue pains;
disruption to family life;
devaluation of property.

Although Together Against Mast Members may not have each and everyone of them have suffered the same or similar adverse effects, individuals, as well as the community at large in Burnley and Pendle have suffered some or all of these symptoms and conditions.

We would draw to your attention worldwide research linking the pulsing of masts such as the PLANNED 3G POLE MOUNTED TRI BAND O2 ANTENNAE MAST ON Phoenix Engineering to the disruption of sleep patterns, causing the breakdown of the melatonin process and subsequent immune problems leading to the inability to fight pre-cancer cells.

Several post Stewart, Scientific reports strongly reinforce this hypothesis, in particular:

Saltzberg Resolution 2000;
Catania Resolution 2002;
Trower Report 2002;
Dr Helen Irvines studies Glasgow Health Board 2002
Dr Gerald Hylands Report 2002;
Research Baconnier Lang et al October 2002 (Israel Department of Chemical Engineering Negev);
Freiburger Appeal October 2002.

Two independent reports have been carried out By Alasdair Philips of PowerWatch and Roger Coghill of Coghill Laboratories the authors of those reports have described a "Piggy Back" effect whereby the wrong siting of your mast gives the microwaves opportunity to ride on radio waves in direct line and penetrate deeper into body cells. The Coghill report recommends that the mast is urgently moved at least 500 metres from inhabited property and that a therapeutic mode is attached to the equipment to reduce the risk of further related ill health due to the non-thermal effects of pulsed microwave radiation. Nearly 200 residential homes are located within a 300 metre radius of the planned O2 mast on Phoenix Engineering.

Local residents near Phoenix Engineering and our Together Against Mast Members are no longer prepared to remain inactive and allow the health of themselves and their families to be threatened in the interests of financial gain and we are working together to protest strongly against this O2 Mast planned for errection on Phoenix Engineering.

We urge you to reconsider the siting of this mast on Phoenix Engineering.


Yours faithfully

Mitch
TAM

[Mitch]

Hi All,

Here's another one - they are not wasting any time in rolling out these 50 planned new masts for the Burnley area - here's another one - residents again will be leafleting widely, and the owner of Dickie Pinks contacted!

Please feel free as a member of the public concerned about masts to write your letter to Burnley Borough Council in support for residents around the Dickie Pinks Public house, which is a widely visited entertainment venue in the area of Tunnel St, Burnley!

Residential Housing again surrounds the site of this planned Vodaphone telecommunications mast!!!


**************************
TOGETHER AGAINST MASTS (TAM)
NOTIFICATION OF FORTHCOMING
VODAFONE TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST

PLANNING PERMISSION FOR A PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS INSTALLATION OF FLAGPOLE DESIGN HOUSING, 3no ANTENNAS & 1no.DISH & OTHER DEVELOPMENT THERETO. CURRENTLY BEING REQUESTED BY VODAFONE, TO BE LOCATED ON:
Dickie Pinks Public House, Tunnel Street, Burnley, Lancs.
LETTERS OF OBJECTION SHOULD BE SENT TO BURNLEY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, QUOTING REF CMR/APP/2006/0064 BEFORE 20th February 2006
Any residents wishing to hear more on the dangers of Telecommunication Masts, and how you can protest against the siting of this Mast near you, You can phone Together Against Masts on 01282 771635.

[michele cryer]

Thanks again for this useful info. Mitch!

[Mitch]

admin said:

Thanks again for this useful info. Mitch!

Gary's off to see Dickie Pinks - he used to live round there so watch this space for more developments.

Also, next TAM meeting is next week - Wed, 8th Feb/7.30pm/Padiham Town Hall.

Can pick you up You were excellent at the TAM Burnley Town Centre stand - we need you!!

[michele cryer]

LOL, Mitch...thanks for the compliments! You were excellent too, as usual...

Yes, I'd love to attend the meeting with you, thanks for the offer of a lift.

[gary]

The delegated decision is that prior approval for the microwave transmitter mast proposed for the summit works has been refused.

Details are shown below.


Planning Application Details

Application Nº: NOT/2006/0015
Date Submitted: 06/01/2006
Applicant: 02 (UK) Ltd
Location: Unit 1a Summit Works Manchester Road BURNLEY BB11 5NS
Proposed Development: Proposed 13.9m (overall height) pole mounted telecommunications antennae on rooftop
Case Officer: Cathy Ryder
Reason for Advertising: Circular 22/88 (Publicity For Planning Applications)
Decision Level Description: Delegated
Decision Description: Prior Approval Telecom refused
Decision Date: 03/02/2006
Statutory Expiry date: 01/03/2006
Target Date for Decision: 24/02/2006

[Mitch]

gary said:

The delegated decision is that prior approval for the microwave transmitter mast proposed for the summit works has been refused.

Details are shown below.


Planning Application Details

Application Nº: NOT/2006/0015
Date Submitted: 06/01/2006
Applicant: 02 (UK) Ltd
Location: Unit 1a Summit Works Manchester Road BURNLEY BB11 5NS
Proposed Development: Proposed 13.9m (overall height) pole mounted telecommunications antennae on rooftop
Case Officer: Cathy Ryder
Reason for Advertising: Circular 22/88 (Publicity For Planning Applications)
Decision Level Description: Delegated
Decision Description: Prior Approval Telecom refused
Decision Date: 03/02/2006
Statutory Expiry date: 01/03/2006
Target Date for Decision: 24/02/2006

Fantastic - I'd heard this from TAM chair too Gary - great news isn't it.

I think residents were superb in the area - leafleting widely, plus with the extra pressure of the public meeting I think all the hard work is beginning to pay off.

FANTASTIC.

Gary - PM me if you need a lift to TAM meeting in Padiham tomoz night - weds/let me know your address. I'm more than happy to pick you up.

I know you've Notification leaflets etc. for Dickie Pinks area - hoping in meeting to gather a team of people to leaflet that area hopefully next Sat, 11th Feb. All welcome to help if free.

It's working what we're doing - hooray!!!!

[michele cryer]

You know Mitch...it's really reassuring to hear the number of people now actually talking about the mobile phone mast issue since that meeting the other week...and I'm able to speak about it myself without feeling embarrassed about working on behalf of T.A.M. (even if it has just been for 1 saturday up to now!) and other campaigns...I had a word with a bloke from the C.V.S. yesterday, to see if groups such as T.A.M. could apply for any grants for support with costs of paperwork etc. and he's gonna look into it for me...

Count me in for tomorrow and Saturday...

[Mitch]

Leafletting around Dickie Pinks this Saturday, 1pm.

All welcome. Great stuff at meeting last night Gary.

Cheers Mitch

[Mitch]

Leafletting session went really well (very cold!). Cheers to Eileen for the coffee!

Since leafletting Saturday several residents have been in to complain to the landlord, and a petition is being gathered. Landlord may pull out.

More anon. Best Mitch

[Mitch]

Progress report on Dickie Pinks proposed Mast.

Due to come up at Council Meeting - next week,

THURSDAY, 2ND MARCH - Meeting commences 6.30pm. TAM members are meeting outside Burnley Town Hall at 6.15pm - ALL WELCOME TO COME ALONG AND MEET US OUTSIDE.

Eileen - a local resident living near Dickie Pinks is going to speak!

EVERYONE WELCOME TO COME ALONG AND SUPPORT EILEEN!!

Best wishes. Mitch

[michele cryer]

Hey! Well done for this Mitch...would be great to come along and listen to Eileen speak!!

[gary]

I've just read the planning report for the proposed dickie pinks mast and it's disgraceful how Burnley Council have ignored all the misguiding errors in the application.

For a start, the plots provided to the council are for 11 metre high antennae whereas the actual antennae height is 12.5 metres. Hence, the chosen coverage area will be much larger than that of 11m high antennae giving more scope in which to move the transmitter/mast. *The coverage area should be based on the whole antenna catchement area and not from its centrepoint.

Worst of all, the council have included a 'photomontage' of the mast in the planning report for councillors to consider! The photo doesn't even show the huge dish.
Just a flag-pole with a dummy 'flag' superimposed on the top of the pole (see 1st link below).

A photomontage isn't submissable to the area committee since it is not a true scaled, representation of the development. Whereas a CAD drawing is permissable. A photomontage is misleading and rarely represents a true image of a finished development.

This photomontage will totally mislead the councillors since it does not show the hazardous mains equipment cabinets to be put 'in the beer garden' on the west face of the club building! Publicans in the beer garden, including their children, will be sat literally up against the hazardous signal generators. The A/C mains unit is also outside the pallasade fencing and projects halfway onto the footpath.

see the planning report and imitation photomontage here which omits the equipment in the beer garden...
www.burnley.gov.uk/downloads/Dickie_Pinks.DOC

Now see page 3 and 4 of the drawings here showing the beer garden and the huge electrical generators...
www.burnley.gov.uk/downloads/06_0064_loc_plan.pdf


The report also states that no objections have been received? WHAT?

Also, the report states there will be no ecological impact.
OF COURSE there's ecological impact since there is no 'leeway' to relocate the mast if the building has to come down or the mast needs moving when the leasehold expires. *Leeway refers to how far and where the mast can be moved when the leasehold expires (or be re-sited for other reasons), or, an alternative position nearby that would be considered either by planning officers or at the committee meeting by councillors.


Burnley Council planning have sat around and not offered other alternative sites.
Nothing has been added to the online planning register, it's as if BB Council have accepted the applicants proposal without even commenting on it!

Instead, BB Council have refused to negotiate with vodafone's agent when an alternative site was proposed (recreation ground). Burnley Council have once again relied on the technical information provided by the applicant without question, then compared it with the local plan and give it the go ahead.

Even the owner of the nearby Susan Mill said if they allowed the mast it would 'predjudice' future development (i.e. no one would buy or it may take forever to remove the mast if they wanted it shifting either before or after the leasehold had expired).

As if that wasn't bad enough, the supplementary info actually states "The land to the west is a mix of residential propoerties as well as a park area and a school further to the west.

Yet in the SAME document, the pre-application check list states "Location of site in relation to school = NONE" suggesting there's no school nearby?

The provided supplementary info on page 7 from vodafones agents actually state that a 3G cell already exists; it doesn't! Furthermore, they say that "without this site (dickies) the number of calls that would drop out would be at an unacceptable level." How can it when no site exists!

I've never seen a report like it. I was amazed at how biased the report is towards the applicant, showing perceived photo's of only half the development excluding the major equipment, stating 'case law' about only taking health concerns into acount in 'exceptional circumstances, a term even the council in its report can't define. It's nonsense and let's hope the councillors and landlord have the sense to refuse it.

[Mitch]

Cheers Gary,

Not sure I have much faith in most of the Burnley Councillors on rejecting this.

Are you up for coming along next Thursday night too?

Best Mitch

PS. Is TAM chair aware of all your key points above re: dickie pinks so that Eileen is well informed when she speaks?

[gary]

Dickie pinks could lose trade..

Perhaps the landlord of the Dickie pinks should read the article below [see link]. Note the arrogance of the spokesman for the operator who states 'Mobile phone masts do cause concern in your part of the world'

It's comments like these that make folk in 'our part of the world' more opposed to mast applications.

Perhaps Mr 'spokesman' we're not as 'gullible' in our part of the world to let unresearched technology into our back gardens without question?

We bow to the spokesman's knowledge when he states 'there's nothing to worry about in terms of health', well, at least it seems some do, depending of course on which planet we're currently on...

homepage.ntlworld.com/cad-designs/prism/news/23_2_06_pubtrade.htm

[PRISM]

O2's agents are BACK again for the THIRD time and have re-applied to erect a mast on Summit works , Manchester road Burnley.

Although the previous 2 applications were refused, planning officers at Burnley council invited the telecoms operator back if they were dissatisfied with the previous planning decision. An offer which O2's agents now seem to have taken up!

www.burnley.gov.uk/site/scripts/planning_details.php?id=10676

Previous refusals were based on local plan policy such as policy E23 gateways & throughroutes, plus the location being unsuitable for such commercial business as telecommunications transmission.

Undeterred by the health warnings from the Together Against Masts (TAM) chairman, the landlord stands to gain over £5,000 upwards per year from letting out his land to the operator.

O2's agents seem to have convinced the planning officer dealing with the case after the recent third 'pre-application' get together at the Town Hall's restaurant.

But hold the line a moment (no pun intended), if an application has been refused TWICE before for the same location, then it comes under a 'contentious' application and should go before the town's Development Control committee and should no longer be dealt with by a planning officer who sits quaffing coffee and buns with the applicant. This is not how democracy works and it does seem that there is no 'call in' procedure at Burnley to call in the application to the committee.

However (another big however this), according to the planning department, an application goes before committee if more than 2 objections are received, but (a BIG but) this is not as clear cut as one thinks. It's been known at Burnley council that an application has been officer delegated when there has been MANY more than 2 objectors to a proposal.

So the people of Manchester Road are now in a similar situation as those in Reedley where O2's agents INSISTED that a mast was erected on the playground as a floodlight.
The WHOLE of the targeted Reedley area (over 200 letters) objected yet the agents were adamant it went ahead.

The operators agents even submitted an application and at the exact same time they appealed to the planning inspector against the previous application decision of refusal.

Harrassment?
Imagine if a representative from the food & agricultural board came along and asked you to eat a certain new brand of bread, even though it hadn't been fully tested, and it may have a carcenegenic (cancer causing) effect, would you eat it?

Now imagine if the representative came along with the full backing of the government and actually forced you to eat the new foodstuff, without your consent?

This is exactly what is happening with 3G masts when they are erected in your backyard without your consent.

Without the backing of the community in and around Manchester Road this mast may go ahead, there are several alternative locations by the agents insist they this site would give them 100 per-cent coverage and the others they considered are unacceptable.

*The licence conditions for 3G state that a licenced mobile operator must have 80% network rollout of the new 3G system before the end of 2007 or penalties may be enforced.

Yet when the operators bought the licences they anticipated their existing 2G (voice and text) phone users would upgrade to the new 3G system. This has not happened since the licences were bought 'on anticipation' without first being market-researched for their popularity or ability to reach the anticipated download speeds (which have been shown to be abysmal).

The operators agent may have convinced a planning officer at Burnley of their 'need' for a mast at the summit mount, but what they should really be saying is the real 'need' is so a licence condition be met and at the same time introduce another 2G mast into communities, when they should of course be placed far away in fields, the Sahara desert preferably!

[Mitch]

Hi PRISM,

Cheers for this detailed update - yes, had heard from TAM chair about this - unbelievable.

Presume residents in the area that challenged previously are fully aware - think TAM chair is trying to make contact.

This has absolutely got to be challenged - the power in the hands of Burnley Planners at the moment is beyond belief.

I've some ideas on the challenge to this - next TAM meeting is Tuesday, 5th December (Padiham Town Hall). Can you make it? I know you're busy.

See you soon. Mitch

PS. Any news on St Bedes?