Pendle (PRISM) Mast Campaign

[Mitch]

There is a meeting tonight, Tuesday, 31st May 2005, at Nelson Town Hall, commencing 7pm, bringing together people involved in various telecommunication mast campaigns in the Pendle area over the last few months - this includes campaigners involved in the Walverden Reservoir Mast (rejected), and the Barrowford Mast Campaigners.

I think the Deputy Mayor of Pendle is also involved. Anyway this is all the information I have on this gathering, it hasn't been widely publicised. I'm bobbing along, and will report here tomorrow on events.

Best Mitch

PS (forgotten what PRISM stands for, can't keep up with all these initials.)

[Mitch]

Unfortunately I didn't get to this meeting, was running late after cleaning job and starving so had to get home sharpish for me tea - apologies. I'm slackin.

Anywise, awaiting report from some that were there - hopefully they'll get back soon!

[michele cryer]

Thanks for letting us know about this Mitch...sorry I didn't see the post earlier or I might have been able to bob along meself...if you hear of any other events like this, just give me a ring and I will see if I'm able to attend.

[Mitch]

www.pendletoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=8&ArticleID=1044540

Here's your report, not from the horses' mouth (Gary and Colin both of whom I emailed), but from the Nelson Leader.

I've learnt a lot from both the Walverden Mast Campaign, and now the progression of PRISM, which stands for/now I know - Pendle Residents Against Insensitive Siting of Masts.

There's something wrong though - this campaign has been appropriated by Labour Councillors jumping on the bandwagon, particularly Deputy Mayor of Pendle, Labour Councillor George Adam who, cough, chaired the meeting and speaks for the residents of Pendle. There's no comments here from local residents like Anne Holmes who tirelessly worked on the Walverden Reservoir campaign collecting a petition, and who visited the factory where this mast was going to be sited, and tackled the landowner with several hardhitting letters to the Leader. Where is Anne?

The focus now is solely on the phone companies, namely in this case Vodaphone who are the company behind both the Walverden and Barrowford mast sitings. The exception being Gary Bird who is passionate about the mast issue. I fear though that the connections he's making between central government policy facilitating the roll out of the masts by Vodaphone and the like may well be drowned out as the campaign goes on.

THIS IS NO GOOD - THIS IS A POLITICAL ISSUE, and all the main political parties have abysmal policies towards phone masts - none of them want to stop the errection of these masts outright. Does Councillor George Adam know that NEW LABOUR, the political party he represents have received millions of pounds from the five big phone companies to role out hundreds of 3G masts in the next two years, not to mention after that more powerful 4G masts - the errection of which are probably already being planned behind our backs.

NOTICE IN THE ABOVE REPORT THAT COUN.ADAM MAKES NO ATTACK ON HIS OWN PARTY'S POLICY, NOR DOES HE DRAW ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS ARE AS MUCH TO DO WITH THE GREED OF THIS CURRENT GOVERNMENT WHICH LONG AGO SLIPPED INTO BED WITH BIG BUSINESS.

Government and big business are equally culpable in this issue, and until both are attacked full on by campaigns such as this I can't see how far they can get.

I think there is a danger now in local campaigns, much like the dilemmas being discussed around big national and international campaigns like G8, that they are vulnerable to contamination, and infiltration by local councillor bandwagon hoppers and in the latter celebrity do-gooders and charities.

The result for both potentially is that they become benign as a challenge because they are working within the system and with the tools of the system. But at the crux of the issue (for example telecommunications masts) it is the system - our so called democracy which is responsible for the problem in the first place.

I could make the same argument for many issues now. The tactics of the beast (the government/big business amalgamated into one) have become clever - they join these campaigns and they chip away at them from within.

Grrrrrrr, I'm gonna have some serious talking with that Headless when he comes round about this.

It's campaigns like this in communities that really make me see the importance of creating spaces like the Burnley Voice where the issue is the focus, and if the government are culpable, which they usually are these days, then we won't hesitate to criticise them head on.

Can you fight the State within the system and the rules that they created - methinks not. Still, I suppose you can make a little dent in it, but you won't knock it down. This is a big dilemma for libertarian mindeds and anarchists working both locally and nationally now, and we ought to thrash it out and have a coherent strategy to counteract it.

[Mitch]

www.communigate.co.uk/lancs/prism/index.phtml

Pendle Residents against Insensitive Siting of Masts - PRISM

This group have set up their own space on Communigate - so hopefully they will post up dates of meetings, and progression of residents campaigns here.

The above link is a really useful and accessible explaination of the dangers around Mobile Phone Masts, and the move towards the stronger 3G masts.

Communigate is always a good source for finding out about what local groups are up to - and it's fairly independent as it is a space provided by local newspapers, rather than the council.

[michele cryer]

Great Mitch, thanks for the link.

[Guest]

Brierfield school playground blatenty omitted from mobile phone operators search area...
www.communigate.co.uk/lancs/prism/page1.phtml


PRISM go global

German Information source 'OMEGA twoday' grab PRISM news article as basis for WHO environmental health concern...

omega.twoday.net/stories/738885/


Cancer risk 'trebled' only five years after phone mast is erected..

www.cityneighbours.com/phorum-3.1.2/read.php?f=19&i=864&t=864

EIGHTY per cent of mobile phone calls are said to be 'comfort calls' made from people simply feeling lonely.

A top research company reveals that due to changes in society and how people 'interact' with each other (or lack of face to face interaction) means mobile telephony is being used as a farcical way of conveying true intentions.

One survey revealed that many school children as young as 8 years old were using their mobile phones to 'ringtone' friends just yards away in the school playground.

Mobile Operators State

"To meet our licence conditions it is imperative that we have in place a future network that meets our clients demands. Even though the demand is not yet there, we must have in place the offering, health concerns are catered for, and we have the backing of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)"

The NRPB Reports...
.. 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".

There is now scientific evidence of biological effects occurring at exposures below ICNIRP guidelines...


It is not more research that is needed, it is a STOP now on idiotic fools attempting to impose more radiation on our sensitive environment.

will post more later, HTH

Guest

[michele cryer]

Thanks for that interesting post HTH...Guest!

[Mitch]

Hi Guest,

Thanks so much for this information, and the links concerning corrupt O2's latest antics.

Nothing surprises me about these phone companies now, they care nothing for public health and are driven by profit and greet, supported by government policy.

I will most certainly be dropping another letter to Gordon Prentice MP for Pendle, protesting about O2 vicious tactic to put forward two applications for phone masts. This company is playing games with public health!

Anyone else wanting to write to Gordon Prentice or email him, these are the contact details:

Gordon Prentice MP
33 Carr Road
Nelson
Lancashire
BB9 7JS

Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Mr Prentice has been very outspoken lately on getting rid of Trident, criticising his own government's policy on Nuclear detterents, as evidenced here in his recent speech:
www.gordonprenticemp.com/project_detail.cgi?id=cam&projid=1120820518

Perhaps Mr Prentice would also like to look at his own government's policy on telecommunications masts, and how they have accepted huge pay offs (we're talking big money hand outs here!) from the 5 major phone companies to roll out 3G Masts in the next two years across the UK.

The wider implications of central government policy, are to tie the hands of local government, and resisting councillors who face penalties if they do not fulfil this obligation for masts that central government made, not us RESIDENTS HERE IN BURNLEY AND PENDLE.

Local democracy is in danger here, and councillors should be up in arms. One could make the same argument as regards housing renewal and new elevate plans for development which are railroading over residents.

So, thank you again guest for highlighting this yet another plan for a telecommunication mast in this area. Please continue to keep us informed, and let us know of the next date for a PRISM meeting.

Also, I thought you'd be interested in this link below to a website of local residents resisting telecommunication masts in their area of Hackney in London.

It's a great model - or certainly some ideas for a PRISM website.
Here it is: www.nomast.org

Look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Best wishes. and firm commitment from the Burnley Voice to support the resistence to telecommunication masts in this area.

Mitch

[Guest]

Hi Mitch

tx for the nomast.org webpage.

I remember not too long ago their was a similar vigil at the DSS in Burnley when an operator wanted to put a mast on top of the building. Although some people would like to see DSS Employees fry a little (chortle) people power won the day and as far as I'm aware the mast was resited (ya can;t tell nowadays, it's probably hidden nearby and painted red like a pillor box).

Don't know much about the 'elevate' scheme but from what I've read about it on the net it's similar in nature to telecoms masts that it is dictated by Central government with local government and people having little or no say in how or where these renovations are to be. From what I can see it's local people's anger that's being elevated. The people certainly seem to be being elevated (or shafted one may say).


[glow=red,2,300]MORE MAST RELATED NEWS[/glow]

Got some more news on the mobile phone mast front. And this 'must' be let out the bag cos it seems Pendle Council don't want it to be announced so here it is....

Mast campaigners are becoming increasingly aware that
Mobile Phone masts 'restrict' future development around wherever the masts are built. A prime example are the 'two' masts on the Chimney in Nelson. The old 'Riverside mills' (Crawford Street) have been demolished to make way for new housing but the chimney and its masts (antennas) are still there.

Reason? The masts are part of the telecomms network and can't be removed until the leasehold expires or good reason shown to resite them. I looked on Pendle council website and noted that the ppl who bought the land (Bellway homes) don't seem to be aware that the holdup for development is due to these phone masts, and Pendle Councillors aren't even aware the masts are causing the holdup with Pendle executives covering up the mast problem by stating more time is needed due to the Local Plan.

What I can say is that Pendle Chief Executive and planning beuroprats are hiding the fact of the masts from both the Councillors and the landowners (who have every right to now go ahead and build on the land). Instead of allowing Bellways to build, the council are negotiating with the two phone operators, pleading to resite the masts, at what costs we don't yet know.

The executives at the Council are telling Bellways the reason for the delay is due to a 'master planning exercise' needs to be completed, whereas the real reason is that Pendle Borough Council (PBC) are negotiating with the 2 mobile phone operators to resite the masts.

Resiting of course is costly, means more problems for residents, and moves the problem into areas not yet designated for telecoms equipment. Yes, the PBC haven't even considered designated areas for these masts so they are implemented on an ad hoc basis, its crap but there ya go so is the planning dept.

perhaps someone should phone or email Bellway and let em know why theres a possible delay, the webpage and email for Bellways north west is:

www.bellway.co.uk/westlancs/home.htm

Ask for Daniel Kershaw at Bellways.

I'm gonna let everyone who reads this post into a wee secret about how badly Pendle planning handles its proposed developments. Not only do Pendle LPA lack consultation with residents when they receive departures from the local plan, but they also fail to correctly monitor development!

A prime example is the Wilkinsons store in Nelson town center. This store was actually built THE WRONG WAY ROUND!

Yes, take a close look at the frontage. A councillor became suspicious when store owners nearby complained that there were lots of deliveries being made at ungodly hours and over the pedestrian areas.
It turns out that due to the wrong construction, a NEW delivery bay had to be built and included at the pedestrian entrance (where the outdoor market is held).

Once again Pendle LPA did not receive a slapped palm or even a maladministration claim. Wake up people of Pendle, lets kick arse and gain control over our borough.

All that space upstairs in the Mall and Pendle LPA decided to build over existing free space!

The shop keepers and residents of pendle were not balloted and asked if they would prefer the new Wilkinsons store to be added on or to utilise the upper part of the existing mall, anyway I digress...

The fact remains that we seem to live now in an increasingly apathetic society that fears to confront authority, the very authority that are there to serve them. I was sickened recently to hear that after the London bombings some Hoteliers in the London area put their fees up threefold. It wouldn't happen here up North, we respect human rights and this is a prime example of why there is no such thing as a 'Central' government.

If anyone's in any doubt about the Wilko store being constructed the wrong way round just go the town hall and ask to look at the 'plans' for the building. You'll need to hold the drawing upside down to see what I mean about the useless frontage, cos the entrance doors should be on the outside (and not within the arcade entrance as they are now).

And before anyone asks, yes, certain 'councillors' did find out about this but did absoutely nothing! sodall!

So I agree with ya Mitch that democracy is being lost down London and our MP is obviously ignoring the people who elected him.

There's almost nothing left of manufacturing in Burnley & Pendle and schemes like elevate are clearly designed to bring more cheap labour service work, riverside living (for those managing the service sector), and at the same time demeanor and oblitorate our local heritage.
I need to read up more on the elevate scheme so I'll post back my views maybe in this board.

PRISM have a meeting on the communigate site and can be emailed from there and theres a messageboard.

I'll not waffle bout parkwise and refuse recycling cos that gets mi tits up, but I will post other news later....

best wishes

Your informitive .. Guest

[Mitch]

Hi Guest,

thanks again for further information. I'll certainly have a close read of the PRISM Community website this weekend, and endeavour to attend the next meeting.

I'm also going to try and find time to follow up/support Brian Jackson's letter (see the friends of the earth thread in this environment section for that letter in full, and some indication of what Elevate is all about! There are links with central government's approach to housing, ie. railroading and erosion of local democracy, and with their policy on masts - again railroading both local residents and councillors!)

Would be good to see the Nelson Leader flooded with letters from campaigners in PRISM to keep up the momentum against MASTS.

If there were only more hours in the day, hey guest. Do come back again and keep us informed.

In full support, Mitch

[Guest]

mitch said:

Hi Guest,

So, thank you again guest for highlighting this yet another plan for a telecommunication mast in this area. Please continue to keep us informed

[glow=blue,2,300]NEWS UPDATE - PRISM aim to change telecom policy..[/glow]

The original policy on telecommunications had been changed seemingly omitting many sections that would safeguard specific designated areas deemed sensitive such as listed buildings...

Read the full story... www.communigate.co.uk/lancs/prism/index.phtml

[Mitch]

Three cheers for PRISM for those policy challenges to Pendle Borough Council.

Read with much interest - thanks so much for the links. Shall be watching local press, especially the Leader which has covered masts campaigns well, to see council's reaction.

thanks so much guest for keeping us informed.

[Guest]

PRISM community web now has a list of known mobile phone masts in Pendle. Click the link below and see if theres a mast near you.


www.communigate.co.uk/lancs/prism/page4.phtml

[michele cryer]

Hmmm..not looking good is it...Edge End High School!!! What do they think they're playing at? Do they think it doesn't matter about the schoolkids cos they're nearly all using mobile phones anyway?

I live pretty near to Edge End High School, btw.

[visitor]

Major Breakthrough for campaigners

NEWS HEADLINES "Electrical fields can make you sick"

An article out today in the Sunday Times claims that the UK government's Health Protection Agency (HPA) have now accepted that electrical equipment such as mobile phone base-station masts do have an effect on peoples health and wellbeing. Read the full article below.....

www.communigate.co.uk/lancs/prism/index.phtml

*The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) are now part of the HPA.

[michele cryer]

Thanks for posting this article visitor...perhaps now the government will feel forced into siding with people who object to the current placement of mobile masts.

[visitor]

O2 use Bully boy tactics
I noted last weeks 'Nelson Leader' reported the demise of O2's third planning application to site a mobile phone mast at Belvadere & Caldervale sports club.

Here's the full article link below...
www.communigate.co.uk/lancs/prism/index.phtml

Pendle Council's webpage for the third planning application has the register and I noted that there were not less but MORE letters of objection from residents than the previous application. One or 2 from doctors and solicitors I may add.

Although O2's Agents were obviously ignoring the requests of the residents and councillors they were given the go ahead on all proposals by the landowner of the sports club. So whatsay we propose to erect a phone mast next to the landowners house?

The Inspectors Report
This surprised me since in making his deliberations the inspector insinuated that 'lack of demand for 3G' was a material consideration. If the operators do not go to the high courts then they seem to concede that there is truly a lack of demand for the 3G technology.

This 'lack of demand' for 3G phones and masts was confirmed earlier in the week by a mobile phone shop in Clitheroe. This ridiculous situation where no one wants a 3G phone may mean there will be more 3G masts than 3G phones! here's the article..

The store's owner, Lee Roe, reported a slump in `3' sales since February and now advises customers against signing up to the company....
archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/2005/10/18/872909.html


The 3G technology has been out now over 4 years and its obvious that even with a complete 3G network the lack of demand would mean the network could not be subsidised in the future.

The operators know this and are yet again gambling that they can roll out the 3G network disregarding the fact that theres no demand, it can't happen. This is the result of pure greed, simple. The operators scrambled and bidded for the 3G licences in the 'anticipation' that the technology would 'rocket' and 'everyone will want one'!

Fact is, someone forgot to tell the operators that prudence is due and it's best to market the product prior to bidding for and buying the licence.

All the 5 main operators are currently running an appeal through the European courts trying to get their money back from the gamble. Unfortunately, avarice and the wish to have things TODAY means that many in society are in heavy debt. So the telecomms operators are up the ol creek, no paddle, or boat for that matter.

Nevertheless, not to be complacent. The O2 proposed network for Nelson south and Burnley North is at the town hall and I grabbed a copy of the map.

With the Greyhound Inn mast in Brierfield currently under construction we can now see WHERE the other phone masts/cells are proposed...

to minimise this post I'll paste the map in another post on here....

[visitor]

Here's the plot coverage map for O2, note that I put the existing mast (at the Greyhound Inn) as a blue triangle. Now refer to the map...
The greyhound Inn mast is chosen here as a start point since this mast is currently being installed.

Approximately 1km South of the GREYHOUND INN mast (03462G) is another proposed mast (number 034786) which is roughly the Reedley sports ground/back of magistrates court (above reedley road). *The map/plot is fairly old and this mast could be the one recently refused at Belvadere & Caldervale sports ground by the planning inspector.

Going south east we head into Burnley where we see Mast no. 034630G which is proposed for Marsden road near the roundabout to Borrowdale drive.



Going further south-west into Burnley we have mast reference no. 010616 which seems to be between Colne Rd. and the M65. It's possible that this mast is the one that's been accepted by Burnley Council and to be placed on Windermere avenue at the junction of Casterton ave, BUT, due to the radial distance between this mast and the 034630G mast it's likely that another mast is needed to bridge a gap. This new cell is needed to enable 3G coverage along the M65 where the signal is then passed to mast ref. 034786

The Cells wil then overlap, I'd anticipate another mast, a power increase, or an application for a 2G mast with views to a future 3G antenna added to the existing 2G.

Going North from the GREYHOUND INN mast into Nelson we have mast no. 034785 which is between the M65 and Barrowford road (at the bottom of Carr Rd and Barrowford Rd.) This will need to be a tall tower structure or it will be placed on an existing tall structure such as a nearby chimney.

East of this is Mast no. 004770 which is just off Manchester road and possibly a proposed upgrade to O2's existing 2G mast on the Car Park roof above the Bus station in Nelson centre. *According to OfCom's Sitefinder this mast is currently 2G only.

*Each proposed map mast location was compared with an equally scaled map to gain approximate locations. As with operators cell search areas, the locations may vary slightly. The original scale is shown, for more detail use streetmap.co.uk


As we can see, the closer we live to a major road, motorway, or densely populated area the higher the
chances of living in close proximity to a 3G mobile phone mast.

Major Operators in Pendle: ALL

Future development restrictions due to base-stations: Chimney at Riverside Mill in Nelson. Operators ORANGE and T-MOBILE both have antennae on the chimney with equipment housings below. Current plans mean that negotiations with both operators are needed to either re-site the masts or demolish the chimney and erect a free-standing lattice tower structure. Construction company unhappy about the masts and knows the housing will be less desirable if built around a mobile phone mast. If the new buildings are to be flats or similar high structures it's possible the mast could be put on the roof of any proposed flat.

The map shown here is from a single operator ONLY. There are five major operators altogether and looking at Vodafone's proposed plot coverage/network there are another seven masts plus possibly another TWENTY ONE from the other operators ORANGE, T-MOBILE, and HUTCHISON 3 (H3). H3 do not have an existing 2G network and have recently installed TWO 3G base stations in Nelson, seemingly without consultation with residents. There's a H3 on Hallam Road Nelson, and another off Pendle Street in Barrowford.

Since the Hallam Rd mast was not on the Sitefinder mobile phone online database, the principle planning officer at Nelson town hall was contacted and asked if he could explain the Hallam Road mast, i.e. who the operator is and did they notify the Council of their intentions by issuing a 56-day telecomms determination as laid out in Part 24 of the General Permitted Development Order (as amended 2001).
He said "I can't find any record of that application on the files, can I call you back".

This was on Wednesday 19th Oct and the planning officer has not yet rang back, BUT, two days later, hey presto, the Hallam Road mast appears on the OfCom sitefinder database as a Hutchison 3G mast!

I'll have the roll out (plot coverage) maps for Pendle 2005/6 from the other operators soon. If anyones interested I'll maybe post them or send them to the PRISM website..

[michele cryer]

Hiya Visitor/guest...thanks once again for your detailed post regarding the above worrying issue...your information is gratefully received here...

[Mitch]

Ditto from me too, PRISM friend, I read your posts with great interest. Thanks so much.

Do you think Hutchinson will be trying there luck again in the near future and having a go again around the Walverden Reservoir area?

I agree with your comments totally about the pernicious greed of these mobile phone companies on 3G mast rollouts - set against an obvious lack of demand for 3G phones which can send photos and all the rest - which digital cameras do very nicely for thank you very much!

Greedy competition at it's worst - I agree.

Best wishes, Mitch

[visitor]

mitch said:

Do you think Hutchinson will be trying there luck again in the near future and having a go again around the Walverden Reservoir area?

Best wishes, Mitch

Hi Mitch

As soon as I get the rollout plans for Hutchison 3 I'll post them up here. The rollout will show if Walverden is a target for a proposed Hutchison 3G mast in the near future (i.e. the plans will be for 2005/2006).

In the meantime, Hutchison 3 (H3) have installed a mast on Hallam road (southfield ward), apparently without notifying councillors or residents, so depending on the line of sight there'll be another mast within 1km of Hallam Road (manor mill, Dawes & Co. building)....

H3 have also installed another 3G mast at the Jtn. of Pendle St. and Lower clough St. in Barrowford, 100 m from Nelson College, no consultation again with residents, only found out about this mast after it appeared on OfCom's SiteFinder...

It seems all of H3's masts are going thr'u as permitted development so Pendle Council may not have the rollout plans for H3's network, I'll find out and post em up ASAP...

[Mitch]

visitor said:

mitch said:

Do you think Hutchinson will be trying there luck again in the near future and having a go again around the Walverden Reservoir area?

Best wishes, Mitch

Hi Mitch

As soon as I get the rollout plans for Hutchison 3 I'll post them up here. The rollout will show if Walverden is a target for a proposed Hutchison 3G mast in the near future (i.e. the plans will be for 2005/2006).

In the meantime, Hutchison 3 (H3) have installed a mast on Hallam road (southfield ward), apparently without notifying councillors or residents, so depending on the line of sight there'll be another mast within 1km of Hallam Road (manor mill, Dawes & Co. building)....

H3 have also installed another 3G mast at the Jtn. of Pendle St. and Lower clough St. in Barrowford, 100 m from Nelson College, no consultation again with residents, only found out about this mast after it appeared on OfCom's SiteFinder...

It seems all of H3's masts are going thr'u as permitted development so Pendle Council may not have the rollout plans for H3's network, I'll find out and post em up ASAP...

Thanks so much, your informative posts I always read with great interest.

Cheers Mitch

[visitor]

NEW MAST PROPOSED FOR BRIERFIELD

Mobile operator 'ORANGE' have just applied to install a monopole mobile phone mast in Brierfield outside the car park gates of BSN Medical on Glen Way. The mast is to provide 2G and 3G services.

The proposed 'slimline' pole is wider and 13 feet higher than the streetlamp a few feet away.

BSN refused to negotiate hosting the mast on their premises so the operator have requested permission from the Council to place the mast just outside the premises.

The operator claims "there is currently inadequate provision of service in the Brierfield area".


Existing ORANGE Site

The operator already has a mast on Wood Street Brierfield (see image below) but claims the wood street mast was installed as a microcell and due to the increase in call traffic a new macrocell* mast is needed to fill the gap and also provide the new 3G service to its subscribers. *Macrocell base station masts provide the largest area of coverage in a mobile network and are have larger antenna and are more powerful than a microcell.


Existing microcell mast on Wood St. Brierfield

---

No consultation with residents

Due to the masts location on Glen Way and its appearance the operator has decided that under their 'traffic light model' the mast is deemed 'green' and no further consultation is needed apart from that with the planning authority.

The planning loophole

It is only due to the mast on Glen Way being a ground based structure on Council land that prior approval (planning permission) was needed and hence residents have in this instance been consulted by the local planning authority.

If the mast had been accepted by BSN Medical on their premises (i.e. rooftop) or for example on the Hollin Mill chimney nearby, then the proposal would have gone through under permitted development which the planning authority are not obliged to publicise at all since no planning permission is required.

The Government have still as yet not closed this planning loophole and it's disgraceful how operators utlilise the loophole to rollout networks.

Changing planning rules: The MP for Pendle Gordon Prentice has been contacted and it's urged anyone in Pendle (or Burnley) concerned about these masts also write and demand changes so that fair consultation is expected from both the local council and operators on ALL mast proposals (including permitted development).

---

To get you started, below is a letter sent to the MP requesting something be done about this...

---

Gordon Prentice MP
33 Carr Road
Nelson, Lancs.
BB9 7JS


Subject: Poor public consultation on mobile phone masts

Dear Mr. Prentice

As you’re aware, in 2001 the Government announced a series of important changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts, one of which was:

1. to strengthen public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission

If this was the case, then all mobile phone mast applications would be publicised and the local planning authority would notify/consult residents and other interested parties accordingly.

However this is not the case, and the majority of developments requiring masts below 15 metres are carried out under Part 24 of the Town & Country ‘General Permitted Development’ (GPD) Order which does not require any public consultation whatsoever.

Why no public consultation?
If a licensed operator proposes to install a mast on a building (or other structure) they need only notify the Council of their intentions upon which the council can only comment on the position and appearance of the antennas/mast. If the proposal meets the criteria in the GPD Order then no public consultation is required since the proposal does not require planning permission.

This is still a perverse incentive for operators to rollout a network (particularly the new 3G which requires low height antennas) under the auspice of GPD. This is exactly what’s happening now in Pendle and a recent installation on Manor Mill (Hallam Rd. Nelson) has caused much controversy and distrust between residents and Pendle Borough Council. The council and the operator did not tell residents about the development.

As recommended to Government by Sir William Stewart and again by the Private Members Bill forwarded by Andrew Stunnell MP (Liberal Democrats), we propose that permitted development rights for licensed telecommunications operators be revoked and that all ground based masts be subjected to full planning permission thus bringing England into line with Scotland and N. Ireland.

Local residents are concerned about this issue and fear a mobile phone mast landing on a building close to their houses. As our MP, what do you intend doing to rectify this problem? I’d appreciate your opinion on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

---

[Mitch]

Thanks guest, I'll work on my letter tomorrow to Mr Prentice.

Just an idea, but may well be worth copying this letter to Kitty Ussher who pledged to support campaigns against Masts when a few of us went to see her from TAM (Together Against Masts) recently.

I'm sure if Mr Prentice knew how supportive she had been, he may be less inclined to ignore letters.

Thanks again guest for keeping us informed.

Best wishes Mitch

[michele cryer]

Yes thank you, guest, your information is well received here...I will try to get a letter sent to Mr Prentice too, regarding this issue..

[visitor]

thanks michele & mitch for the replies and for writing in to the MP.

Its a good idea Mitch to let the MP for Burnley know, maybe put a carbon copy note at the end of the letter to MP Prentice that a copy has been sent kitty usher.
Cc. Kitty Usher MP (Burnley)

I had a look on Burnley Councils website and was astonished to find that the head of planning services had agreed to allow siting of a mast knowing that the main beam from the mast landed directly on a school and its surrounding playgrounds!

Initially, the proposal was to site the mast on the fire tower but the beurocrat officer said it was too close to the school. The operator had given her (planning officer) the approximate distance of 405 m and you won't believe what she said in her report (see map below for what she said). The mast is on Burnley Ridge Ave and you may already know about this mast.

*Sitefinder shows that this 'Hutchison 3G' mast was approved and is now actively adding to the radiation emissions from the other two surrounding masts.

I've put what the head of planning said in her report at the bottom of the map I snapped from BCC website...



"in the absense of demonstrable harm"?

Note how the head of planning states 'caused by the development' and not 'caused by the telecommunications equipment'.


I thought maybe this is a one off where the head of planning touts such a clause in her reports. So... I looked at another mast report for BCC, and hey presto, she mentions the 'in absense of' again and again. Clearly she uses a template report and uses the 'absense of' in an attempt to cover the Councils fraught back. Its shameful considering Councils are supposed to adopt a precautionary approach with the first port of call being to share existing masts.

Thanks again for writing to MP's. Let me know if you need me to write anything, I'll report back when I get a reply from MP Prentice about the permitted development rights (PDR).

In the meantime, I've written to Pendle LPA asking them to send me notice of ALL future telecoms proposals that aren't publicised (i.e. notifications/assumed permitted development). We can't let any mast slip thru the net under the prentence of PDR's simply to discover later that the mast has been upgraded, equipment added, and the power output increased.

[Mitch]

Here is my letter to Mr Prentice, will be in the post tomorrow. It's a bit rushed, but hopefully will be of some support to the great work of PRISM, and to local residents around the planned Brierfield Masts.

I feel strongly that the campaign goes on beyond fighting MASTs on your own doorstep. We might have stopped the one at Walverden, but I care just as much about the residents around these masts, errected and proposed, in Brierfield as I did about myself and my neighbours here near Walverden reservoir in Nelson.

I very much look forward to a public meeting where we can come together and express this mutuality - it would make us much stronger I think.

Signing off, bestest Mitch

Gordon Prentice MP
33 Carr Road
Nelson, Lancs.
BB9 7JS

Dear Mr Prentice,

RE: Poor public consultation on mobile phone masts & concern on roll out of numerous 3G phone masts across Burnley & Pendle

I would like to add my voice to the rising concern amongst residents in Pendle over the insensitive siting of telecommunication masts across Pendle, without consultation with local residents near these masts.

I was involved in the Walverden Reservoir Residents Against Masts campaign earlier this year, and am a member of Together Against Masts (TAM), which now has over 3000 members across Burnley and Pendle.

It has come to my attention that the Mobile operator 'ORANGE' have just applied to install a monopole mobile phone mast in Brierfield outside the car park gates of BSN Medical on Glen Way. The mast is to provide 2G and 3G services. BSN refused to negotiate hosting the mast on their premises so the operator have requested permission from the Council to place the mast just outside the premises. The operator claims "there is currently inadequate provision of service in the Brierfield area". This operator already has a mast on Wood Street, Brierfield.

As with the Walverden Reservoir campaign, local residents have had little information concerning this matter, and little if NO CONSULTATION.

This does not sit well with this government’s pledge in 2001 of important changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts, one of which was:

1. to strengthen public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission

If this was the case, then all mobile phone mast applications would be publicised and the local planning authority would notify/consult residents and other interested parties accordingly.

I totally support my colleague’s comments from PRISM in a recent letter to yourself, stating,
“As recommended to Government by Sir William Stewart and again by the Private Members Bill forwarded by Andrew Stunnell MP (Liberal Democrats), we propose that permitted development rights for licensed telecommunications operators be revoked and that all ground based masts be subjected to full planning permission thus bringing England into line with Scotland and N. Ireland”.

Several members of Together Against Masts (TAM) recently visited Kitty Ussher at her surgery in Padiham, and Ms Ussher has pledged her support of TAM and residents’ concerns over the despicable lack of consultation by the phone companies. Ms Ussher told us that ‘her constituents come first’.

We are hoping to hold a large public meeting shortly to bring together all residents involved in fighting telecommunications masts across Burnley and Pendle together, and Ms Ussher has pledged her support. We hope that you too will support and attend that public meeting. We will certainly advise you of the date.
Please see the chairman of TAM’s comments here recently in the Burnley Express, 4th November 2005.
www.burnleytoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=131&ArticleID=1243103

Yours sincerely

Mitch
Together Against Masts (TAM) Member

[guest]

I've now had a reply from Pendle MP Gordon Prentice about the lack of consultation on masts and permitted development rights. Here it is [in italics below]...

Thank you for your letter of 1 November.

"I agree that it is quite legitimate for local authorities to have greater power to determine the siting of mobile phone masts".

"I am in touch with the office of the deputy prime minister [ODPM] to find out the position on this issue and I will write to you again as soon as I have a reply".

Yours sincerely,

---

I specifically asked for the MP's opinion on this matter but it looks like Gordon only agrees that LPA's have a 'legitimate' case and gives no opinion whatsoever.

Oh dear, if the MP is waiting for the ODPM's opinion then it's likely they will relay to him the same message that was relayed to APmobile and the Local Government Association... here's what APmobile reported the ODPM told them in 2004 in the ODPM's response to the Stewart report and its recommended revocation of permitted development rights [PDR's] for telecoms operators...

In its evidence to us, the ODPM stated that careful consideration was given to this recommendation [revoke PDR's] and that it was decided to strengthen the planning arrangements for telecommunications development, but not to revoke the permitted development rights.

This included some of the measures such as lengthening the time limit to 56 days for local planning authorities to consider the requests for prior approval, and to require them to carry out public consultations in the same way as would be done for full planning permission. The ODPM is satisfied that this meets the concerns expressed in the Stewart Report, and that the only difference between the prior approval and planning permission procedures is the deemed consent after 56 days.

AS we can see the ODPM's measure does not satisfy the concerns in the recommendation whatsoever since it simply ignores PDR's and only lengthens the prior approval process. What's the point in lengthening a consultation process unless it can be acted on accordingly? It's nonsense!

The MP for Burnley Kitty Ussher seems to adopt strange standards on this issue. On the one hand she says "she's concerned about the effects masts have on individuals" yet on the other she states "there is no conclusive position either way on possible effects", and that she still has an open mind on the [health] risks associated with mobile masts".

If she's so concerned what's she doing about it? Monitoring ongoing research isn't going to solve an immediate problem yet the answer is very simple; place a 500 metre exclusion zone around a mast. It beggers belief that people in Government can't even accept this simple concept and are contunuously looking for ways of avoiding public outcry's.

Someone should remind Ms Ussher about how many health scares there have been where scientists have warned of dangers long before governments have taken action: lead in petrol, traffic pollution, asbestos, smoking, thalidomide, and, most recently, the chaos caused by failure to act quickly on BSE infected cattle.
In these cases it has often taken years to prove conclusively how these health problems have been caused.

Wake up MP's Ussher and Prentice, residents will not be held to ransome by a Government who is hell bent on overriding public concern for the sake of securing its annual income from private companies who intend on the same.

---

I'll reply to MP Prentice letting him that residents are not willing to accept the same reply the ODPM gave APmobile on Permitted Development Right's and that I'd like his opinion on the issue (as originally requested).


download the 2004 APmobile report here...
www.apmobile.org.uk/apmobile%20rpt%203.pdf

[michele cryer]

Thanks for this update Guest!