|
Post by Mitch on Nov 21, 2005 17:46:50 GMT
Hi PRISM friends, I too had a letter from Gordon Prentice this morning in response to my above letter. It went like this, Dear Mitch ;D "Thank you for your letter of 8 November about the issue of public consultation on mobile masts. I have signed the Early Day Motion on this issue and I am in touch with the Deputy Prime Minister. I will write to you again when I have had a response. Yours sincerely GORDON PRENTICE MP" As to which ERM he's signed I presume it's this one from 14.10.05 which reads, "MOBILE PHONE MASTS (No. 2)14.10.2005 Featherstone, Lynne That this House acknowledges the benefits that mobile telecommunications bring; recognises the high level of concern in many communities such as Hornsey and Wood Green regarding mobile phone masts; urges the Government to undertake an independent and wide-ranging study of epidemiology in relation to mobile phone masts; believes that the current planning control is inadequate, failing to consider safety and local and environmental concerns; and calls on the Government to bring mobile phone masts, regardless of size, under strict planning control and to bring in the precautionary principle, to give extra safeguards to schools, homes and medical facilities from the risk of excessive radiation." edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29071&SESSION=875His name doesn't appear up yet on the signage list! I'm presuming he's just signed it. Lynne Featherstone MP/Hornsey & Woodgree/Lib dems has raised a number of positive ERMs on telecommunication masts. I'm presuming that this will be the ERM that 'our Gordon' is alluding to? This is a bit of good news is it not? What do you think guests? I'd say the need for a combined large public meeting now of all our residents masts groups is really timely to increase the pressure, in conjunction with our 'beloved local MPs' of course ;D ;D We hope to have a date soon - in the New Year - various speakers are currently being asked for convenient dates. Best wishes. Mitch TAM (Together Against Masts) member (PS. an EDM is this - I only became aware of them recently in campaigns - so hope this helps anyone who hasn't heard of them, as I hadn't until recently: "An Early Day Motion, or EDM, is a motion put down ("tabled") by Members of Parliament calling for a debate on a particular subject. In practice, there is rarely time to debate EDMs nowadays and their true modern-day purpose is to enable MPs to draw attention to an issue and to canvass support for their views by inviting other Members to add their signatures in support of the motion. Members may also table amendments to existing EDMs. The House of Commons Factsheet Series P no 3 on Early Day Motions, which is available for downloading in PDF format, gives more information about EDMs." You can always find a list of them here: edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/Default.aspx
|
|
|
Post by guest on Nov 21, 2005 20:10:31 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Motion[/glow]? What Motion?I can't seem to find where Prentice MP has signed the mobile phone mast EDM this year either, and it's appeared twice so far. Once on 4th July and again on 14th October. He hasn't signed it according to the 2005 records, nor does it show that MP Prentice has supported the EDM. Here's a list of EDM's signed by MP Prentice so far this year... edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMByMember.aspx?MID=231&SESSION=875Although sometimes useful to draw attention to an issue, with the current outcry about concerns from the public on phone masts there really shouldn't be a need to call for an EDM since the issue is number one on all MP's resident concerns list. But they are there to be used so the more the merrier. Either the outcry about concerns about masts has died out a little or a campaign step up is needed. Obviously the concerns are still here and in the news everyday so I'll write back to MP Prentice and maybe go and see him. I'll surely query his assertion and find out when the MP signed the motion and request a copy or at least evidence that he supports stricter control over mast locations etc.. The time for talk is over, it's time for MP's to listen to the people who elected them and showed some concern by actually 'giving us their opinion on the masts issue' instead of fobbing us off with 'I'll get back to you when the ODPM has responded'. MP Prentice's poor response to you Mitch is very similar to the one he gave me, a poor response on the subject of poor public consultation I might add? I just hope MP Prentice doesn't come back with the same response the ODPM gave APmobile and the LGA as mentioned in my previous post on here...
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Nov 22, 2005 18:33:59 GMT
Hi guest, I think he means he's signed the October EDM??
I'm glad you're going to follow that issue up, as I've no idea which EDM he's on about, and he certainly hasn't created one of his own! ;D
Look forward to hearing more on this guest.
Best wishes. Mitch
|
|
|
Post by Gary PRISM on Nov 26, 2005 1:54:02 GMT
IT'S TIME FOR ACTIONFollowing the recent influx of complaints of ill-health from people living near mobile phone masts in Burnley, PRISM have decided to call time on those responsible and are now stepping up their campaign to stop mobile phone masts being erected altogether. As the vice chairman of PRISM, I have spoken to the Together Against Masts chairman Dennis Cannon and note we need to enforce a more pro-active approach to the threat that confronts us in the form of corporate greed. Everyone has a right to object to a 'theory', and that 'theory' is exactly what is expressed in the governments response to the report from its own advisory body on radiation effects from phone masts on humans. Within the space of two weeks our local media has reported illnesses from residents in Burnley attributed to mobile phone masts. These sickness complaints cannot be considered as 'psychosematic'. why? Because it's simply not possible for a child to have an emotive illness from a pre-conceptive thought unless it is imbibed upon them them relentlessly. It is clear that the UK government allay fears by subduing the public into believing that they are protected by guidelines. What we are seeing now is pure greed with assurance from a government that has simply no idea of the difference bewteen independant research and established science. BEFORE a food product goes to market it must adhere to stringent rules. The foodstuff is subject to strict regulations, not guidelines. Marketeers know that less than 2 percent of people actually read the ingredients. IN STEPS THE DISEASEHow many health scares have there 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 exactly how these health problems have been caused. The health risk to the public from phone masts is obvious, take a look at how the mobile operators approach councils? Why is there a need to contact schools and nurseries if the radiation emmissions from a phone mast meet ICNIRP guidelines? Unsure equals unsafe! Anyone who lives in Pendle please pledge your support to PRISM and join our cause to oppose siting of masts that are known to cause adverse health effects. PRISM MEETINGSDecember seems to be a target month for many mobile phone operators. We won't let them spoil our XMAS, so please help us spoil theirs by JOINING US at our MEETINGS. See PRISM's meetings for December by clicking here.. www.communigate.co.uk/lancs/prism/calendar.phtml?action=index&user=prism&year=2005&month=12I look forward to our support, Gary Bird, vice chair, PRISM
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Nov 26, 2005 8:52:52 GMT
Thanks for this notice, Gary. I will try my best to attend at least one of your meetings in December...
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Nov 26, 2005 12:12:40 GMT
It's Time for Action, I agree wholeheartedly. Great stuff Gary - you can count on my support. I shall be at the Brierfield Town Hall Meeting on Tuesday, 6th December at 7pm (can pick you up first Michele if you can make this date). See you there. Best wishes Mitch PS. so glad you've spoken with Dennis.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Nov 26, 2005 15:13:17 GMT
Thanks for the offer of a lift Mitch, that would be great!!
|
|
|
Post by PRISM on Nov 27, 2005 2:26:09 GMT
thanks mitch and michelle for your support. Just to fill you in on the details of the recent proposal to site a mast outside BSN Medical in Brierfield... I spoke at the Brierfield & Reedley ctte meeting in May [2005] warning Councillors of the planning tactics used by agents acting on behalf of mobile operators. My response was to the O2 proposal of a 15 metre tri-antenna mast outside the old Junction Pub in Brierfield. This proposal came only 3 weeks after a previous one from the same operator to install a mast on the Greyhound Inn rooftop (actually concealed inside the chimney). In terms of mobile networking these 2 proposals so close together (in both time and location) from the same operator didn't make sense. Why would there be a need for 2 masts only 200 metres apart from each other I asked myself? Of course the truth is that the agents essentially used the 'choose between the two' tactic. It worked! and a planning officer said it was prefereable to use a rooftop structure rather than cluttering up the highway/footpath. There was little PRISM could do since there was no opposition from residents, even though the alternative site report from the operator stated there were no playgrounds nearby, clearly nonsense since the walter st, school was directly in-line with the beam at that topography and only 150 metres away. Anyone who's been past the Greyhound Inn can see the destruction work being carried out on the building for the sake of a product (3G phone) that's not even in demand. www.communigate.co.uk/lancs/prism/page1.phtmlIF Pendle Council had a strategic plan in place for telecoms siting then this would not have happened. Pendle Council have a duty to ensure a mobile operator considers mast sharing as priority. This isn't possible if the council allow masts to be concealed on or within buildings. I was (let's say) 'very concerned' with another operators proposal to site a mast inside the el-trop club, which is directly across from houses and schools. Consultants cost us £165.00 per hourOrange plc. agents have sent a lot of info into Pendle Council attempting to show there is a 'need' to plug a gap in 2G coverage, the real reason of course is to implement the new 3G service. Pendle Borough Council (PBC) now employ an external telecoms consultant to verify the demand for the application, even though government state that local government should not question this demand. This 'insistence' by PRISM that an external consultant is used for telecoms proposals came about through a full council meeting a while ago. At the meeting every councillor in Pendle refused to accept that current government legislation was appropriate and insisted the MP for Pendle supported a private members bill to give councils more control over mobile phone masts. We are fortunate that all councillors in Pendle are educated enough on the phone mast issue to actually listen to the people who elected them. But this won't alter the fact that the development and control committee still fear costs on appeal of a mast refusal. Pendle Council notified around 16 residents of the Glen Way phone mast. Feeling that this was inappropriate, PRISM notified over 200 residents of the proposal. Our children do not have a choice on their environment. So how can we, as responsible parents, accept that we -place them from birth, in an environment convoluted with contradictiory science that aims to place wealth before health. The current government have ignored residents pleads for over four years, even though residents have complained of illnesses that are directly related to the phone masts imposed upon them without their consent. We will no longer sit in silence and suffer from the technology that scientists say is harmful to humans. The UK government have agreed, that the only reason they are allowing the technology to continue is because there is not yet proof that people are becoming ill. An absolute nonsense. If Local Council's fear costs on appeal against mobile phone operators, then they are failing in their duty to protect the public they represent! We must make the Councils aware that we are williing to stand the costs of appeal on the grounds of human rights. WE are the Council, make no hold or fear of that, we the people and have the ultimate say on issues that affect us or our children, who have no say. TAM and PRISM have shouted loud enough for people to hear, yet this ludicrous holding to ransome by the government of our councils seems to have had little impact. The time for talk is over, we now need direct action to suspend the rollout of the 3G network until further scientific evidence ensures it is safe, or at least increases public confidence so they have a democratic choice, and to allay their fears, that something that cannot be seen is safe. Owning a mobile phone is a choice, living in the beam of unknown certainity isn't. Hopefully the Brierfield community will take note of the Nelson Leader published next friday [don't miss it]. thanks for your support,, Gary [PRISM vice chair] . whilst
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Nov 28, 2005 9:28:00 GMT
Hi Gary, I wholeheartedly agree with all your comments. Prentice in his letter to me then may well mean the Private Members Bill rather than an EDM At some point as well I thought that Pendle Borough Council had considered pledging a halt to all new telecommuncation masts at one point, similar to the actions taken by Sefton Council who are now facing the possibility of huge fines from Central Government for this action - the more councils that do this the more effective the resistance. Anyway, thanks for that further information and looking forward to seeing you again on the 6th. Best Mitch
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Nov 28, 2005 9:29:52 GMT
Thanks for the offer of a lift Mitch, that would be great!! Ok will do. best Mitch
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Nov 28, 2005 12:36:39 GMT
Thanks Mitch!
|
|
|
Post by gary prism on Dec 3, 2005 2:02:22 GMT
Phone Mast too close to kerb
The planning department at Pendle Borough Council have now confirmed that the proposal of a 15 metre phone mast on Glen Way will contravene the highways act in that there needs to be a 2 metre distance walkway between a kerb and a standing fence.
The planning manager has now reccomended refusal of the application to erect the phone mast on Glen Way.
This comes as a surprise to PRISM since the decision of the Council seems to have had influence from the fact the pre-application stage was agreed to be deemed prior approval and not permitted development.
The operator Orange plc could have erected the mast under 'permitted development rights'.
The council state that they only received four letters of objection, whereas the planning register holds at least double that. There are anomalies as to consultation and PRISM made sure local residents were made aware of the proposal by posting over 200 letters notifiying residents of the proposed phone mast.
The recommendation by the planning manager is for refusal based on the mast and its cabinet being too close to the kerb along with the height which was deemed to be excessive in relation to the coverage required.
I'm over the moon that Pendle Borough Council have heeded the advice of their external telecoms consultant on this application. However, the council in this application still don't fully grasp the concept of the 'prior approval' process since the proposal is still deemed permitted development.
Although the recommendation on Tuesday 6th December may yield a refusal , this may only be short lived. The refusal on Tuesday means the operator will need to find a location in their search area that will not contravene the highways act.
PRISM's task is to keep these masts away from residential areas at all costs, and if need be remove the threat to human health that the current government says still exists due to lack of research.
The recommendation from planning officers is good news. The editor of the leader times who lives in the main beam of the mast, told the Council in no uncertain terms the view of past history of chimneys and pollution are now being replaced with new technological unseen pollution, had a bearing.
PRISM's opposition on the proposal to the ward councillor has been made, he will speak and oppose the mast proposal on the grounds of incorrectly submitted information by the applicant .
Our submitted information refuting the application will only defer it. With public support we have a chance of permanantly telling mobile operators not to abuse the residents of Pendle with their dangerous technology, and to leave us alone.
Please attend the meeting at 7:00 pm on Tuesday the 6th December at Brierfield Town Hall. I intend speaking, and with your support we can , and must, make changes...
Gary [prism]
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Dec 3, 2005 11:43:17 GMT
Hiya Gary, thanks for this piece of good news...I acknowledge your continuing concerns, however and confirm that Mitch and I will be attending your meeting on Tuesday evening, and are spreading the word about the dangers of these Masts to our friends across East Lancashire!!
|
|
|
Post by gary prism on Dec 5, 2005 23:15:28 GMT
Thanks for the support michele and everyone. I won't be speaking at the meeting on the 6th Dec since the Councillors now have all the details for both the submitted plans and the planning departments recommendation of refusal. I will be attending the committee meeting and I hope lots of others do the same and show support against this proposal. The planning manager [in his report] seems to think that this proposal is considered permitted development and has been submitted for the Council to decide whether or not prior approval will be required in respect of siting and appearance. The report should cause a lot of confusion for councillors not familar with the ludicrous prior approval planning system, so a bit of fun should be had by all. On a serious note, the decision is that Pendle Borough Council have considered the proposal and REFUSED the prior approval details as submitted, for the reasons shown below... As usual, you should get a copy of the report at the meeting, or you can download a MS-WORD copy of the report at the web site below ww2.pendle.gov.uk/committeefornetit/brierfieldreedl_/reports_/2005_/*its 2005.12.06 and then item 6a planning applications Note that as usual other sites were considered and if any of the landlords had agreed to host the mast on their property [eg. BSM medical] Pendle Council would not have any powers to refuse the mast on siting or appearance, since it would be permitted development. On considering both 'siting' and 'appearance' the planning officer has recommended refusal for reasons: (a) it would not be possible to retain a 2.0m clear footway width on either side of the Devon cabinet (to comply with PBC Highways' request) and, (b) the coverage plots do not adequately demonstrate that it would be inadequate at 12 metres. Furthermore a mast at 12m in height would be more in keeping with the existing street scene, being just 1m higher than the existing 11m tall lighting columns. It's likely that residents will wish to speak since only 5 mins or so is given. Anyone can speak of course by ringing town hall before 12 noon on the 6th Dec. gary
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 6, 2005 22:35:08 GMT
Decision: that prior approval be required and given the details as submitted prior approval be refused. From the very beginning of the proposed mast agenda item this meeting was a FARCE from start to end!It's fortunate I put my name down to speak since a representitive on behalf of the operator spoke first about how wonderful it would be to get better coverage in the area. At the very outset of the mast proposal the planning manager Neil Watson said a late submission (evidence) had been provided and that his recommendation in the planning report be ignored and that committee should now agree that prior approval is NOT required and the development should go ahead. This new information was met all round with astonishment [including chair] since it was seen as a foregone conclusion that the mast was innapropriate in the location. Here;s the bottom line. I went into the meeting room early to find it frequented by mainly executive and... the rep from Orange. This seemed strange to me and I had a hunch the guy sat on his own was a rep and had brought with him this so called 'late submission'. I looked at the register prior to the meeting and noticed that the applicant (i.e. the rep) had previously submitted amended plans a week ago BUT the amended plans were actually the original plans! They'd cocked up and at the meeting expected us and councillors to accept their newly amended plans and hence cock up! I asked many questions which the planning manager couldn't answer, he just constantly stated we need to make a decision tonight. What a dirty trick for the planning department to play on the people they are supposed to serve? Apparently the planning manager had coluded with both the applicant and PBC's telecoms consultant and got them both to change their original decisions by (a) moving the cabinet to the middle of the footpath, and (b) saying the consultant now agreed that the 15 metre height was acceptable. BOTH of these decisions contradict what was initially stated that (1) there must be a 2m clearance all round the cabinet as requested by PBC highways, and (2) the mast at 12 m in height would be more in keeping with the existing street scene. What deceit! I recommended that the elected members adhere to the original recommendation and refuse the application. A reedley councillor said he wasn't in a position to make a decision based on such late submissions and refused the approval if someone would second him. For a moment our hearts jumped a beat as Cllr. Clifford spoke then eventually seconded the proposal for refusal. A vote was cast and the approval was refused with the decision going to development and control committee on the 19th December 2005 at Nelson Town Hall. *See link below for the role of the development and control committee.. www.pendle.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=61&pageNumber=4
Resident turn out was poor, but there were 3 residents speaking and plenty of time for me to question the late submission. Clr. Frank Wren gave apologies for non-attendance. Shame really, because Mr. Wren had been given information from PRISM which we asked to be read out. In my speech I handed in the applicants submitted Developers Notice which showed the wrong location. My brief speech about the mast on the chimney at riverside stalling development was met by astonishment (the look on chairperson sonia barton's face was a picture). Reedley councillor Willie Clegg said that since landowners had refused to negotiate hosting the mast, they (council) were being forced into a corner to making a hasty decision and this was unacceptable. All those who objected to the proposal will receive a notice of the exact date and time of the Development & Cont. Cttee meeting. Will Pendle Council's development control committee have the bottle to stand up for the residents and refuse the application? or will they cower in fear of costs on appeal? How can council planning officers justify changing their minds at the last minute by going against the recommendations of the highways department? Why would the telecoms consultant all of a sudden agree to change his mind? All should be revealed since these questions need answering and putting in writing after the meeting on the 19th December. please come along and support, let's rid Pendle of this deceit! Gary [prism]
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Dec 11, 2005 19:23:25 GMT
Gary, thanks so much for this update.
I must convey my sincere apologies for not being at this meeting (my mother was paying her annual visit, and I never made it due to a tough itinery planned by me mother! ;D). Also, I've had quite a bit of work for TAM public meeting in Burnley on 20th Jan, re: posters/tickets - please forgive!
Dirty tricks indeed - and not just from the Phone company, but Pendle BC planning dept.
Hmm, are you planning to write a letter to the Leader?
Is the meeting on the 19th Dec at Brierfield Townhall again, commencing 7pm.
Again, sincere apologies Gary, just collided with other commitments & a family visit.
Best wishes. Mitch
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 13, 2005 15:53:27 GMT
Committee Meeting Details Mobile phone mast on Glen Way in Brierfield
The 56-days allowed to make a decision on this proposal expires on 15th December therefore an emergency development & control committee meeting has been arranged as follows:
Date: Wednesday 14th December Location: Nelson Town Hall (wilson suite, 1st Floor) Time: 7:00 pm
The media correspondant for the Leader has a vested interest since her property is affected by the proposed development, she spoke at the last meeting and so there will be plenty of media coverage as PB Council are aware. The meeting date may tally with the TAM meeting in Padiham.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Dec 13, 2005 17:44:46 GMT
OK Gary, cheers for info. I'll have to attend TAM meeting, as it's an organising meeting for pending public meeting on 20th Jan so need to be there.
Best of luck with this meeting - if they push this one through it calls for a sit in or something I'd say.
Best wishes.
Mitch
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 15, 2005 10:58:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 16, 2005 22:40:24 GMT
A mobile phone mast proposed by Orange pcs on Glen Way Brierfield may now get the go ahead due to a possible blunder by Pendle council's planning department.
In my previous post I reported a decision had been made by Pendle Council's 'development & control committee' to refuse prior approval for the mast on Glen Way.
The decision was due to have been made at the original Brierfield commitee meeting on the 6th December but was delayed due to the planning manager presenting a late submission on behalf of the applicant. This meant that a decision could not be made (unless very hasty) and as such the decision of refusal was referred to development & control thus encroaching close to the 56 deadline allowed. If the deadline is exceeded then by default the operator can go ahead and install the mast.
Pendle planning confirmed they registered the prior approval application on the 20th October 2005, the date on which they say they received the application. They also confirmed that the decision for refusal from development & control was FAXed on the 56th day which, from the 20th October, was wednesday the 14th December.
However, the agent acting on behalf of Orange pcs says that they sent a 'Royal Mail track and trace' recorded delivery which shows that the receptionist received the application on the 19th October, bringing the deadline to Tuesday 13th December and not the 14th, which would be a DAY LATE!
So, the town hall receptionist may have received the recorded delivery notice let's say at 4:30pm on the 19th, but the planning department didn't receive the notice till the next day on the 20th upon which it was duly registered with a letter confirming as such the following week.
So who's trying to pull a quick one here? Problem is that, the planning manager should not have allowed the very late submission knowing that it would cause a delay, since a deferral is not allowed on a 56-day telecoms application and the decision must go to an emergency development & control committee.
I'm afraid the sh1ts hit the fan cos now the councillors know and, ahem, according to a source the chief executive has already had his ears bashed, and the agent's notice to install under the default 56-day ruling only came in today!
PRISM's main concern now is that the LPA will be held to ransome if they don't concede that they made the error and that the applicant may appeal against the decision for refusal.
It's more farcical than a benny hill episode, with the planning manager acting as fred scuttle getting his bald head slapped. And rightly so, the LPA made a similar blunder in 2001 with the Barrowford albert mill proposal when O2 UK ltd notified Pendle LPA they had missed the 56-day deadline... by ONE DAY! and guess who's paying the price for the blunder now? The Barrowford residents...
Being xmas and all that, we'd better tighten our santa belts, and in the new year step up our campaign
An imprudent society accepts legislative argument without question, allbeit to their disadvantage in the long term, and there's nothing more debilitating than a chronic argument... gary
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Dec 16, 2005 23:30:04 GMT
Wow Gary!!! What a blunder indeed!!! Terrible..
Well, have a great Christmas, and as you suggested, let's get going in the New Year...thanks for all your hard work, and the hard work of your colleagues and supporters throughout this one!!
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Dec 19, 2005 19:01:19 GMT
Jeez, Pendle is not the only Planning department causing chaos - check out the thread on residents resistance down in Hackney Gary.
No doubt the phone company will appeal - let me know if I can help with anything in the New Year.
Hope you'll be coming to the TAM organised meeting in Burnley on Fri, 20th Jan 2006/7.30pm start - to share all this with residents fighting masts over in Burnley.
Could help to do a similar public meeting in Pendle. Anywise, keep us informed.
Best wishes. Mitch
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 21, 2005 21:10:25 GMT
Another mast installed without public consultationThe mobile operator Hutchison '3' has installed another mobile phone mast on a rooftop in Colne without anyone in the Borough knowing about it. PRISM only learned of the mast after finding it on OfCom's sitefinder database. Colne town hall planning stated today that 'the operator notified the Council of their intentions in February 2004 and have since installed their equipment on the Green Hill Mill bulding off Skipton Road Colne' [see map below]. So far, in Pendle, all Hutchison 3's transmitter masts have been rolled-out under permitted development simply by being placed on rooftops thus avoiding any chances of having to go through the prior approval process if requested to do so by the Local Planning Authority. Instead of selecting highways land owned by Councils, the operator selects a building (usually a struggling small business) and tempts the landlord with an annual fee paid directly to the landlord if they agree to host the mast on the rooftop/chimney. This causes many future problems since the masts hosted on buildings are more difficult to re-locate when new developments are needed around the mast in the future. The real problem of course is that these notifications do not need planning permission. PRISM have been through all this with Pendle planning department, the local MP, and other councillors and we've been told nothing can be done unless government changes the legislation; which from previous correspondance they have no intentions of doing. At the moment we're trying to get the MP Gordon Prentice to give his opinion (in writing) on the issue of stricter control over mast siting. I'll also request that he attends the TAM meeting in Burnley on Fri the 20th Jan and in the new year strongly urge the MP for Pendle to support the private members bill to allow Local Councils stricter control over mobile phone masts and their emissions plus better consultation etc. Thanks for the offer of help Mitch in the new year which will probably be needed. I'll be at the TAM meeting in Jan. I'm currently putting together an online imagemap showing where these masts are in each area (e.g. a map for Nelson, one for Colne, etc). As soon as I get the map online I'd appreciate if you or someone else could test it for me and see if it works gary The RED arrow shows the mast on Skipton Road..
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Dec 22, 2005 20:00:05 GMT
Ok Gary, see you on the 20th Jan if not before.
Planning legislation is ludicrous and basically is giving the phone companies plenty of loopholes to roll these masts out - such as the mast on top of high buildings to avoid height specifications you mention.
What a farce - I shall be 'demanding' action from MPs and Councilllors (Prentice is their to represent us, not the phone companies!!) in January, and if we don't get it then I'll be taking my inspiration from residents down in Hackney and looking at other ways of organising to bring about change to Mast Planning Legislation.
Looking forward to working with you more in the New Year Gary. Great work being done by PRISM and thanks for keeping us informed here on the Voice.
Merry Catnipmas (I'm a cat lover!!).
all the best, Mitch
|
|
|
Post by prism on Jan 7, 2006 0:18:00 GMT
Masts could all topple eventuallyDue to the government binding the hands of local councils on planning and health issues for mobile phone masts it's no small wonder some council's are doing there best to use every tactic to prevent masts being erected. And rightly so! What other product could buy it's way into the market under a precautionary approach when it's still undergoing research? Even the mobile operators themselves use a 'points' rating system called a traffic light model when deciding where a mast should go. One of their (operators) deciding factors is the amount of sensitivity and opposition from residents. No opposition? GREEN, not near a school? GREEN, On a building where the planning department or residents have no say in the matter? GREEN... It doesn't take a genious to figure out the best strategy is to rollout the network in areas that meet GREEN criteria and avoid AMBER and RED. problem is, most commercial/factory buildings in Pendle (and Burnley) are close to residential areas. After all, the whole idea in the first place to have workers live near the mills/factories. HUTCHISON 3 , who don't currently have a 2G network seem to consistently play the green card, to such an extent they could literally rollout their network without any consultation whatsoever? An 'Under Statement'When I put this question to the under secretary of state she laid the blame squarely at the local council saying " our approach is to give local planning authorities the flexibility to decide the most suitable method of publicity in each case". But surely I asked, if the technology isn't 100% safe as suggested by the NRPB then at least the public are entitled to a fair hearing by having their say where these masts go, instead of being excluded from the planning/consultation process which allows mobile operators to put-up masts under permitted development ? Baroness Andrews reply was " Permitted development rights should not be withdrawn unless there is a real and specific threat to the locality in which the development is to take place. [the rest of this paragraph/garbage can be found in Planning guidance 8 telecoms... Oh but Baroness, look in the dictionary, a RISK is a potential THREAT, or perhaps latent embellishment of your peerage excludes you from reading further into the transcript of that known as the English thesaurus? [my response - minus colourful language]So I haven't replied directly to the minister since clearly she has not grasped the sensitivity of the situation and cannot give a valid reason for refusing to implement the changes recommended to the ODPM by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and the Local Government Association (LGA), and the All Party parliamentary mobile group, and the National Association of Local Councils (NALC), and... A recent article in Kent news showed how councillors and planning officers turned down a mast application based on a proposed mast being too close to a cariageway and it might topple over when windy.. The operator has appealed against the decision. So what? who gives a flying foot! By now the planning inspector, who obviously doesn't wish to bite the hand that feeds him, also bases his/her decision on fear, no doubt. That, and the amount of objections received of course. I wonder how many people realise that they could still be infected with bovine spingiform encepalopophy (BSE)? Try asking a government that recieves BILLIONS per year why they didn't adopt a 'preacutionary approach' when warned of thalidomide and asbestos risks from scientists. Our environment is already polluted with electrical rubbish, even to the extent that scientists are now saying that some homes have over THIRTY electrical points, dangerous chemicals, such as childrens hair shampoo, enhanced food that's genetically modified, ALL reduce the child's (and adults) immune system. Couple this with the IMPOSED microwave radiation from mobile phone base stations and we have not only convoluted science disrupting cancer research, but a main cause for minimising RISKS (yes threats minister) to our health... Our cause is just and right, and we will will prevail.. gary.. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
|
|
|
Post by prism on Feb 3, 2006 23:16:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Feb 4, 2006 8:45:21 GMT
Great links guest from Prism...thank you!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 5, 2006 1:10:18 GMT
Much commendation to all those who helped organise the Together Against Masts (TAM) meeting in January. It was good to hear how the Burnley MP changed her mind and now supports the insensitive siting of mobile phone masts in the borough. Let's take a brief look at the media reports which gives us an indication of how infuential the media can be, which emphasises my point about the commended continued efforts of TAM. On November 8th 2005, the Burnley Express published an article about a pensioner who maintained his health had been ruined after a mobile phone mast was installed outside his home. In the article, the Burnley MP 'kitty ussher' responded by stating that she 'had an open mind' on the potential health effects of radiation from masts, and that 'the government are currently carrying out a huge survey in this area' and that she 'opposes applications in residential areas'. Might I add Ms. Ussher that you do not eat that new breakfast cerial since it has not yet been fully researched, it may cause allergies in some, but we're unsure. We could of course test your children for cancer later after we have the results of the research?...The Burnley MP then concludes by saying " Regarding the scientific side there is no conclusive position either way on possible effects. "I believe the rational solution is to keep studying this as much as possible, which is what the Government is currently doing." The 'possible effects' I might add were stated in the governments own 'stewart report' and clearly stated that 'even below adopted guidelines there may be biological effects'. Perhaps Ms. Ussher missed that statement? Another news article was then published in the Burnley Express about residents in Rosegrove who also maintained their illnesses had gradually increased when at home near a phone mast, yet seemed to subside when away from the mast. www.burnleytoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=12&ArticleID=1261844Somehow the Burnley MP knew that the people she represents were indeed the 'guinea pigs' of a technology that had somehow 'gone wrong' and had been implemented under a precautionary approach that was now affecting the health of certain members of the public. Nonetheless, let's steam ahead and enforce the technology, since it only affects people who are not classed as the 'general public'... At a meeting organised by Together Against Masts in January, the MP for Burnley actually agreed to sit on the bench and agreed to support stricter control over siting of phone masts. More importantly, the MP stated " if there could be a risk, we should not be taking one. We must play as safe as we possibly can." Might I add that a precautionary approach to being safe is not to impose danger upon whole communities without scientific proof that there will be no harm? "It is not for the public to prove their is harm Ms Ussher, it is the responsibility of the governent to prove there is no harm". And this the government cannot gaurantee. Are we taking this seriously enough?As the vice chair of PRISM I pondered on the final words of the Burnley MP.. " If further down the line they are proved wrong, they are liable." Just who is liable Ms Ussher? The desperate landlord needing money to pay his growing debt for paying his sons private health bill? The licensed operators who blatently hide behind radiation emission guidelines that are known to be defective? The UK government who still today fail to pay compensation to those who suffer from asbestosis or phalidomide, or even accept that evolution brings with it changes to the human ecosystem? Or perhaps we should all agree that it is acceptable to allow our children to be exposed to unresearched pulsed radiation that, hopefully, will only affect a few of the 'general public'?
Our campaign is not restricted to Burnley & Pendle. Yet we can only safeguard ourselves and our children from potentially dangerous technology by standing together and monitoring our boroughs. Public awareness of dangerous microwave technology is the key to a successful, sensible outcome. Let's now move into 2006 with the knowledge that although we may be confronted with an unseemingly difficult barrier, our efforts are not in vain; and that together we can uphold human rights when afronted with such adversity.gary (vice chair) PRISM
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Feb 5, 2006 13:40:08 GMT
Gary,
This is a superb piece of writing on the Mast campaign locally - absolutely superb!, are you submitting this to the local press - If not you should send it perhaps in letter form to the Burnley Express. (I may ask you on Weds eve if we might use this piece for our first Burnley Voice newsletter - appearing soon!)
Again wholeheartedly agree with all your comments - look forward to seeing you this Weds eve at Tam meeting.
Tam chair mentioned you needed some lifts over to Burnley - happy to oblige, we can have a chat about this Weds night if you like.
Will take a closer look at new website.
Cheers.
Best Mitch
|
|
|
Post by prism on Feb 11, 2006 23:41:43 GMT
The proprietor/minister of St. Bedes Church on Railway street received a letter on Thursday 9th Feb from a mobile phone operator asking for permission to use the Church to host a mobile phone mast in return for an annual sum paid directly to the landowner/minister. At this moment in time we don't have enough information on the proposal but we are expecting more soon. The map below pinpoints the exact location of the proposed mast.... It is assumed that the microwave mast is to be used for 3G coverage therefore the most intense propagated area (of 500 metres) covers the whole map shown above. To object to this mast you should email: prism.admin@ntlworld.com
|
|