|
Post by Mitch on Feb 13, 2006 9:37:53 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 Ok, cheers Gary. Sorry we missed you after leafletting Sat, we'd missed you when we returned (Eileen had a flast of coffee for you!!) we did go back to DPs and inside for a drink - very nice Working Mens club it is too inside. Anywise, on this one let me know if you want a Notification drawn up for leafletting this week. Cheers Gary. Best Mitch xx (PS. Michele we had a few to do the leafletting so thought I'd let you get over your cold - could be some more leafletting coming up on this Nelson one).
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Feb 13, 2006 16:21:11 GMT
Hi Mitch...thanks for the rest...My cold has more or less dried up now..sniff! So I'm feeling much better. Should be fine to do any leafleting around Nelson...
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Feb 13, 2006 20:03:03 GMT
I've a feeling this one will be refused - already many residents opposing in the area and Councillors on-board against it.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 16, 2006 12:42:14 GMT
Nelson Church targeted for phone mast Details of this proposal are now available on our website.. homepage.ntlworld.com/cad-designs/prism/news/church_proposal.htmOn the above page is the letter to residents along with how you can object to this proposal. Just to recap... How to object to the Church proposalTo object to the proposal it is IMPORTANT that you write to the Church Project manager at QS4 Limited quoting refrence number A11962 before Friday the 24th February 2006. The address to write to is shown below.. Simon Talbot QS4 Limited Cody Technology Park Ively Road, Farnborough Hampshire GU14 0LX You do NOT have to be a Cloverhill resident to object to the proposal, anyone who uses the church as a place of worship or visits the church or lives or works in the surrounding area should also object. When writing, consider what's been said in the 'letter to residents' and this News article. *If you do use St. Bede's Church as a place of worship it's worth mentioning that if the mast is installed you may have to err on the side of caution and consider using a different place of worship. You should also consider sending a copy of your objection letter to St. Bede's vicar, C.O Father Alan Pierce Jones SSC, The Vicarage, Bentley Street, Nelson, BB9 0BS The St. Bede's vicars email is: fr.alan@apj.org.ukEmail QS4: You should in the first instance WRITE a letter of objection to QS4. If you wish to backup your comments you can email a copy of your typed letter to QS4 at: info@qs4.com
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Feb 16, 2006 13:31:30 GMT
Hi Gary, Thanks for this information...please can you update me on whether or not you/we intend to do some leafletting about this over the weekend? Thanks, Michele
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Feb 16, 2006 18:03:04 GMT
Cheers Gary, will write letter to Mr Talbot. Ditto on Michele - let us know when leafletting is planned for around this area. I'm around most of weekend. Tara Mitch
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 16, 2006 20:20:19 GMT
tx mitch & michele
300 leaflets being distributed to local area on Friday afternoon 2:00pm
Any help appreciated. Will start/meet at St. Bede's Church, Railway St. at 2:00pm
No flask required, it shouldn't take long.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Feb 16, 2006 22:25:32 GMT
Hi Gary,
Thanks for this, will try to make it...
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Feb 17, 2006 9:50:07 GMT
I'm working till 6pm today so can't make 2pm - happy to get some extra leaflets through me door though to do Sat morning!! Cheers Mitch, and I'll be doing a letter too tomoz morning.
|
|
|
Post by prism on Feb 17, 2006 16:34:04 GMT
A spokesperson for the NRPB, supposedly the governing body on radiation in the UK, doesn't seem to able to string together a logical conherent sentence.
In a recent news article (see below), Dr Micheal Clarke from the NRPB stated that "masts are completely safe" only in the next sentence to state "more research is needed to make sure".
Are you convinced these people at the so called NRPB actually know their elbows from their derriers?
How can anyone with a doctorate education state "masts are completely safe", then say "we need more research"??
The following news article is from a community in Creswell which has seen an increase in cancerous tumours since 3 mobile phone masts were installed around a housing estate. Ironically, one of the masts has been removed, I wonder why? The nurses in the article below seem to know.. read on...
Did masts cause my tumour Feb 14 2006 A Stafford man diagnosed with a brain tumour after phone masts went up near his home is demanding to know if they were responsible for his illness.
And this week the Post has had reports of one other resident in the area who has also developed brain cancer.
Seventy-year-old Jim Eaglen (pictured) is calling for phone companies and local councils to carry out urgent investigations into the effects of the towers after he was taken ill last August.
The grandfather-of-three underwent hours of emergency surgery to remove a tumour and doctors told Jim he would only have survived for two months if they hadn't carried out the procedure to remove the growth.
This week he was celebrating after one of three masts which had stood on land near his home at Home Farm, Creswell, for more than three years was removed by telecoms giant Hutchinson 3G. The firm has also withdrawn an appeal to have the mast reerected on the site after pressure from householders and councillors.
But despite the good news, Jim, who has lived in Creswell with his wife Rosemary for 40 years, told us he feared he may have fallen victim to the effects of the masts on the community's skyline.
He said: "I had always been concerned about them since it was first publicised about the possible health effects down in Sutton Coldfield.
"The transmissions are like microwaves. We do not see anything and we do not feel anything, but they are putting them on schools, on churches, they are down our streets, and you cannot see them."
He slammed the lack of information on the masts: "There needs to be more literature about these things. More than 'we are putting a mast up'.
"We always object when the firms put the planning applications in, but they do not say how safe the mast is.
"If I wanted to put a tip here in a field I would have to do all sorts of things about what was going to be put on it, so why shouldn't they?"
The retired construction worker, who helped build the M6 which runs near his home, described the terrifying moments last year when he realised he was seriously ill.
"I was having breakfast and I got up and this pain came into my head, terrible it was."
Paramedics rushed Jim to hospital, but despite medics giving him the all-clear, Rosemary wasn't satisfied with the diagnosis. After a trip to his GP and then to a specialist, the tumour was discovered.
He said: "The specialist did a scan and he said if we don't operate now you've got two months, if we do you'll have two years. It was aggressive and apparently they can grow in just a few days."
Since his operation at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke, Jim has undergone months of chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
His life has been severely restricted by the illness. He can no longer drive and even says he has to be supervised when doing the simplest of household chores in case he has a seizure.
Whilst undergoing treatment specialists would not comment on the possible connection between the masts and Jim's illness, increasing his suspicions about a link.
He said: "They would not rule it in or out and it was the same with the nurses.
But what the nurses were saying was they were seeing an enormous number of people, especially young people, with brain tumours."
Other Creswell residents confirmed a spate of cancer cases within the community, including another person recently diagnosed with a brain tumour.
Richard Thomas, Creswell Parish Councillor, said: "We do keep pushing for more information and research. We do seem to be getting these clusters of masts, and the health implications must be worse if there are more of them together."
Paul Freeman, spokesperson for Stafford Borough Council, told the Post the safety of the masts was regulated at a national level.
He said: "Any company putting in an application to install a phone mast needs to comply with national legislation on emissions. And when they do apply to us they have to submit a certificate-that they are complying-with that legislation."-Expert opinion on the health effects of masts and mobile phones is split.
Alasdair Philips is director of Powerwatch, an independent body providing information on the effects of radiation on the public.
He said some evidence suggested susceptibility was genetic and up to 10 per cent of the population could be at risk from masts.
"There is definitely cause for concern. There are no practical restrictions on where they are sited. Ideally, they should be away from residential areas and should be at least twice the height of residential buildings."
But Dr Micheal Clarke, from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) which provides the government with information about the health risks from radiation, said masts are completely safe.
"There is no evidence of cancer. More research is needed to make sure, but most scientists believe that genuine uncertainty lies in the handsets themselves and not the masts." n What's your view? Contact the Post on 01785 212370 or write to us at 35 Eastgate Street, Stafford, ST16 2LZ.
Alternatively, e-mail lynn_grainger@mrn.co.uk
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 17, 2006 23:15:33 GMT
[Fri 17th Feb 2006] A mobile phone operator has ignored the requests from a board of school governors in Nelson not to install further masts on a roof near to a nursery... Despite objections from the head teacher and school governors of McMilllan Nursery on Railway street, mobile phone operator 'vodafone' went ahead and installed the mast across the road on the car park roof of the Admiral shopping centre taking the total number of masts to three and the number of antennas to NINE. In September 2005, the board of governors for the school received a letter from an agent on behalf of vodafone asking them for their 'views and comments' prior to vodafone putting in a planning application. In his letter of reply, the chair of school governors councillor George Adam stated "we strongly object to this proposal and recommend that a more suitable location be sought so that the main beam from the proposed base station mast does not fall on or near our Nursery and Schools". Apparently oblivious to the Schools request, the operator installed the masts using 'permitted development rights' which allows masts under 15 metres in height, or antennas less than 4m above a rooftop, to be erected without planning consent. A spokesperson from PRISM said "Earlier in 2005 vodafone applied for planning consent to put the mast inside the El-Tropicano club on Hibson road, 100 metres higher up from the car park, but that planning application was refused. It is now evident that the operator has returned and installed the mast on the rooftop thus avoiding the need to apply for planning permission from the council. "Although sharing an existing mast is preferred, it is unfortunate that the School is only a short distance from the car park. It is the way in which the operator has covertly installed the mast without giving any notice to the school governors or councillor's. They could at least have been courteous and notified the school of their intentions of overriding the chair of school governors wishes and were about to carry out the development." In 2001 all licensed Mobile operators vowed to improve best practice by publishing what they call the 'ten commitments'. Ironically, top of the commitments list is to include increasing the role of public consultation in the siting of mobile phone masts. Many mobile operators continue to assert that if they deem a particular site to be non-controversial (which they term a 'Green' traffic light rating) then only the Local Planning Authority needs to be told about their intentions. Online version .... homepage.ntlworld.com/cad-designs/prism/news/feb_17_06a.htm
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 18, 2006 9:40:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prism update on Feb 19, 2006 0:33:13 GMT
Pendle MP fails to deliver...The MP for Pendle 'Gordon Prentice' has told the residents of Pendle he cannot support the 'Telecommunications Masts Planning Control Bill' on 3rdMarch because 'he has a long standing engagement on that date, to open a shop'. This comes as no surprise, since several letters from PRISM asking the MP for his stance on the issue of mobile phone masts were met with responses that avoided the issue by redirecting the issue to 'other sources' upon which he'd reply later. MP Prentice does not support the second reading of mast planning control bill. Worst of all, he hasn't even read it. According to a press release in 2005 the MP was aware of the Bill's first reading when all elected members in his borough requested he support it. Even though he fought in his own constituency to oppose a phone mast on a street near his home, the MP seems to have adopted 'double standards' by supporting the safe siting of masts on the one hand, and opposing policies in the mast control bill on the other by failing to attach any weight to it? Which is more important MP Prentice? opening a shop? or enabling sustainable development in the borough by implementing a proper planning strategy and at the same time safeguarding families from microwave electro-pollution? Somehow the MP for Pendle has got his priorities wrong. How can 'save the whale' be at the top of this MP's website list of key issues when THOUSANDS of his constituants are asking for better consultation on the location of mobile phone masts? Of course we all know the answer, money. The revenue from this technology is now the mainstay of the governments taxable income, currently over £20 Billion per annum. Gordon Prentice has neglected to take the issue of potentially dangerous technology imposed upon the people who elected him seriously enough to act upon it. homepage.ntlworld.com/cad-designs/prism/news/mast_control_bill.htm#Qu3Shame on you Mr Prentice, your double standards and deceipt on smoking bans and 'alleged support' to your community are your opinions only! We, however, live in the real world, remember? the one you are supposedly bound to support and reflect in the house of democracy. Your 'new labour' government insults us with lies that now perpetrate to the very heart of the communities you are supposed to serve. We realise that over the years people succumb to your governments tacit promises of better housing, and vows of improved and sustainable development within communities. At the heart of your supported policies is to 'attempt to keep the people calm amongst such anxiety. Too late, the fool has cleared his whiteness from his face and has knowledge of all your covert actions. The Burnley & Pendle Mast Campaign Network will reveal how you relentlessly refuse to listen to the people who elected you, and however much you attempt to tow the party line, we will expose you for neglecting to represent those who elected you, and who wholeheartedly expected in return a vow of confidence that your adopted politial ventures have overridden your electorates safety. this we will not forget.....
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 19, 2006 14:41:03 GMT
Just a brief note about the church mast.
Tried to get a news article in Fridays Leader but was late Thursday when we got the news, so hoping to get an article in Tuesdays Pendle News about the proposed church twig...
gary
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Feb 20, 2006 13:03:54 GMT
Just a brief note about the church mast. Tried to get a news article in Fridays Leader but was late Thursday when we got the news, so hoping to get an article in Tuesdays Pendle News about the proposed church twig... gary Hi Gary, yeah cut off point for Friday's Leader is Wednesday evening I think - always best I've found to get stuff to them the Tuesday before. I've emailed you, let me know if you're petitioning this week and I can give a hand. Superb work yourself and Colin are doing on this mast - the sourcing of funding by churches round here reminds me of the small business scenario - all desparate for funds! Best Mitch
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Feb 20, 2006 18:29:20 GMT
Here's me letter ;D Duly copied to the Vicarage - I've emailed it to QS as well as posting. Is it also worth copying these to the Dicese of Blackburn, to pre-empt their next step Gary?? Cheers Mitch Simon Talbot QS4 Limited Cody Technology Park Ively Road, Farnborough Hampshire GU14 0LX Dear Mr Talbot Re: Proposed Telecommunications Mast at St Bede’s Church, Nelson I was shocked to learn of a proposed mobile phone mast being planned within St Bede’s church, situated in a dense residential area in Nelson. As a local resident I would like to express my strong opposition to this telecommunications mast and my concern over the detrimental impact I believe the installation and/or equipment will have on the health of local residents. The Church clearly has a moral obligation to protect their parishioners, however this does not detract from the obligation as landowners to take all reasonable measures to prevent harm to others from activities that take place on their property. The knowledge that harm can be caused to the health of the local community, in particular children from this type of development is increasingly evident, and the government guidelines are utterly useless. Governments are not there to be led by the Industry (in this case the mobile phone companies) in pursuit of progress and financial gain at the expense of the public at large. A large number of residents live around St Bede’s church! Governments are there to be able to interpret properly scientific guidance or advice. The Education Secretary (UK) has told schools to limit mobile phone use by children (up to 16 years old) and to make sure that mobile phone masts nearby do not send a "beam of greatest intensity" across their land. Children live in the houses around St Bede’s church, spending many more hours here than at school and therefore need more protection. Some countries including Switzerland have banned the errection of mobile phone masts on schools, hospitals and in residential areas! My key concerns for residents around this proposed mast are: 1. cancerous afflictions including leukaemia, brain tumours, breast cancer, cervical cancer, and pre-cancerous tumours; 2. brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer's) and epilepsy; 3. unexplained severe skin rashes; 4. unexplained low white blood cell counts; 5. hormonal deficiencies and early menopause; 6. extreme fluctuations in blood pressure; 7. heart attacks including heart rhythm disorders, and strokes; 8. susceptibility to infection; 9. 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; 10. Nervous and connective tissue pains; 11. disruption to family life; 12. devaluation of property. For evidence of these serious health issues and afflictions caused by mobile phone masts please refer to the following reports: • 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. I am a member of Together Against Masts (TAM), and was involved in the campaign to prevent the siting of a mast near Walverden Reservoir, and we have members who have suffered from some of the effects above who live near to telecommunication Masts. I would draw to your attention that at such time that these links between the installation and/or equipment and anyone of a subset of the above listed adverse effects on the health, well-being or amenity of the local community and/or members of the public are firmly established, you will be held responsible for the damage, howsoever caused, whether that be to health, amenity, devaluation of property (or any other unspecified but quantifiable effect) and compensation will be duly sought. Henceforth, I will deem you to have full knowledge of the effects of the above installation and/or equipment are having on the local population and your future actions will have to be judged in the light of that knowledge. I sincerely hope that you will rethink your decision, and not allow this mast to be erected in St Bede’s Church, and also I would suggest that the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England reconsider, in concern for residents, their policy of siting masts in any of their churches henceforth. I shall be writing to the Archbishops’ Council myself to further state my concerns and make this suggestion. Yours sincerely Mitch ;D Local Resident & Together Against Masts Member cc. Father Alan Pierce Jones SSC, The Vicarage, Bentley Street, Nelson, BB9 0BS
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Feb 21, 2006 1:21:43 GMT
Wow Mitch! What a fantastic letter..I hope it helps do the job!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 21, 2006 9:41:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Feb 21, 2006 15:43:07 GMT
Ok Gary, I'm onto forwarding to Diocese. Cheers Mitch ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Feb 21, 2006 17:58:07 GMT
Also, Gary, forgot to mention - may not be applicable but do you remember the issue of Bat roosting round here that came up on the Walverden Reservoir Mast Campaign. Bats roost widely in buildings round here, and I should think in tall spires in this area near Walverden reservoir. "All species of bats are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is illegal intentionally to kill, injure or take any bat, to disturb roosting bats, or to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place used by bats for roosting." Check this report out: www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/Batmitigationguide2.pdfPlanning authorities are required to take into account the presence of protected species including bats, and may refuse applications on the grounds of adverse effects on these species. I'm bringing this up because I know that Bats are prevalent in this area, they feed on insects over Walverden Reservoir, and that St Bede's may well be one of their roosts? eg. as with this one in 2004: "PHONE MAST REJECTED TO PROTECT BADGERS AND BATS (25th September 2004) Plans for a mobile phone mast in Binfield Heath have been rejected by South Oxfordshire planners to safeguard protected animals. The lattice mast would have gone up next to a bluebell copse at Hampstead Farm, home to wildlife such as badgers and bats. But the district planning committee rejected the application by Hutchinson Communications, ruling the mast and its access road would have an adverse effect on wildlife." www.cellular-news.com/tower_watch/sept2004.phpAnd there have been other cases. Best Mitch
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Feb 24, 2006 11:09:01 GMT
News from PRISM, check out the Nelson Leader today (Fri 24th Feb) for press release on St Bedes Church: "Our long-awaited St Bede's church press release is on page 9 of todays Nelson Leader (see article below) The website has been updated to include a 'Follow this campaign' column so that viewers can track the latest news or download related docs from the church campaign page... homepage.ntlworld.com/cad-designs/prism/news/church_proposal.htm"
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 3, 2006 22:24:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 17, 2006 23:35:42 GMT
Reported News Article - Kings Lynn Today..
"It's a case of where we go, not if we are going to go there," said Verity Stanford, regional corporate affairs manager for mobile operator Hutchison 3.
The above arrogant statement is typical of todays mobile operators. It is this arrogance that will eventually lead to the downfall of an industry that needs support from communities to thrive.
Considering that the 3G phone wasn't market led, or even subject to stringent tests, the operators think they can ride roughshod over whole communities as though they were a law until themselves.
It is YOUR health, it is YOUR community, it is your democratic right to say NO to any product that has not been thoroughly tested and threatens you and your families health.
YOU should have the final say on WHERE these transmitters of radiation should be placed.
MOBILE PHONE MASTS YOU DECIDE WHERE THEY GO
Join our campaign now and avoid the frustration of having to live under a cloud of doubt later.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Mar 20, 2006 8:57:20 GMT
Reported News Article - Kings Lynn Today.. " It's a case of where we go, not if we are going to go there," said Verity Stanford, regional corporate affairs manager for mobile operator Hutchison 3.
The above arrogant statement is typical of todays mobile operators. It is this arrogance that will eventually lead to the downfall of an industry that needs support from communities to thrive. Considering that the 3G phone wasn't market led, or even subject to stringent tests, the operators think they can ride roughshod over whole communities as though they were a law until themselves. It is YOUR health, it is YOUR community, it is your democratic right to say NO to any product that has not been thoroughly tested and threatens you and your families health. YOU should have the final say on WHERE these transmitters of radiation should be placed. MOBILE PHONE MASTSYOU DECIDE WHERE THEY GOJoin our campaign now and avoid the frustration of having to live under a cloud of doubt later. Well said Gary. You know, I've been thinking it'd be well worth discussing at the next TAM meeting a joing fundraising event with both PRISM and TAM to raise money for the campaign - for banners and so forth. That reminds me, just look into that for May Day. Great to see you on Saturday evening. Keep us informed about St Bedes. tara for now. Mitch
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 24, 2006 22:32:29 GMT
Mast Location: Riverside mills off Baker street, Nelson Mount type: Chimney mounted mast/antennas Operator(s): shared mast , T-Mobile (34m) + Orange PCS (39m)
On Wednesday 22nd March a 200 ft crane was spotted hoisting workmen to the lower antennas (T-Mobile) at the chimney.
Initially it was thought that since the building site around the chimney had been demolished it may be that the operator T-Mobile was moving their antennas to another site.
The lower antennas at 34 metres are those of T-Mobile. On Friday. the T-mobile antennas were still in place so it now seems that the antennas aren't being removed.
Ironically, in an article (letters page) of the Nelson Leader a few weeks ago Councillor Tony Greaves stated that 'red tape' meant that the land could not be developed upon for another 12 months at least.
Would this 'red tape' have anything to do with the mobile phone mast/chimney? which for some reason still stands when all around it has been demolished?
Judge for yourselves, you could try asking the operators about it as I did, perhaps you'll receive the same reply "we have contacted our local area branch about relocating the mast and will let you know as soon as we receive a reply".
That was 5 months ago!
It's a shrewd business, and it would be reassuring to know that once the chimney is gone, the microwave leeches suckled to it have also gone, preferably into the nearby Leeds and Liverpool canal!
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Mar 26, 2006 16:42:28 GMT
Mast Location: Riverside mills off Baker street, Nelson Mount type: Chimney mounted mast/antennas Operator(s): shared mast , T-Mobile (34m) + Orange PCS (39m) Ironically, in an article (letters page) of the Nelson Leader a few weeks ago Councillor Tony Greaves stated that 'red tape' meant that the land could not be developed upon for another 12 months at least. Would this 'red tape' have anything to do with the mobile phone mast/chimney? which for some reason still stands when all around it has been demolished? I don't doubt it - I'd spotted that in the Leader and thought exactly the same thing Gary. Well worth asking Tony Greaves himself about it I'd say! The implications on planning for the future are that mobile phone companies will be dictating building development - another thing this government (and Prentice) care nothing about - they just want the money!
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Apr 13, 2006 22:25:55 GMT
A brief note to say that the proposed microwave mobile phone mast for St bedes is not yet resolved.
In a letter to residents the company QS4 stated the mast was proposed to be placed within the church. When the vicar of St Bedes was asked about this he stated that he had no influence on the decision, yet 10 days later his name appeared on the church notice board that he was actually supporting the application to host the mobile phone mast.
QS4 in a letter residents stated the mast was to be within the church, yet the plans in the church foyer show the mast disguised as a 'tree' outside the church at the back near the fence off the conservation area.
Furthermore, the company QS4 stated in their letter to residents that no development plans were available at the time, yet the plans (diagrams) in the church foyer show the company/operator Vodafone went into a deal with QS4 'BEFORE' the letter was dispatched to residents.
As though all these lies weren't enough, we now have deceipt and misinformation confronting our community from external sources that have bought their way into avoiding the democratic planning process.
Together we will stand and show our strength by opposing such risks, we will not allow our sacred land to be corrupted by those whose only interest is to bypass our planning process in the name of profit...
gary
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Apr 25, 2006 11:33:01 GMT
Hey up Gary, Don't know about sacred land ;D- have you seen the state of the area around St Bede's? I gonna work on a leaflet for the area this week - D has sent me that information on another Church of England church that pulled out of errecting a mast on it's premisis after pressure by local residents. Hope all's well with you.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 8, 2006 14:02:32 GMT
So what is ‘official’ ?According to Liverpool’s Daily Post, Sefton council are currently in the process of conducting an ‘official enquiry’ into the effects of mobile phone masts on residents’ health and house prices. The inquiry actually began last year after a group of Sefton residents mounted pressure on the authority to investigate the health implications. At the time, firefighters were also campaigning against mobile phone masts at six fire stations in Merseyside. *Firefighters at the station shared concerns with local residents about a possible cancer cluster in the area. Sefton Councillor Brenda Porter said “there is enough concern and conflicting evidence to warrant further investigation. As an authority, we want to make sure we take precautions to safeguard our residents until it has been proved either way." The report will go before full council later this month, when members will vote whether to take on the report's recommendations. It advises that phone masts be placed at an "agreed safe distance" from schools, residential properties, childrens' nurseries and hospitals. What’s the Government’s view on ‘safe distances’ from masts?Government planning guidance on telecommunications say local planning authorities should not implement their own precautionary policies e.g. by way of imposing a ban or moratorium on new telecommunications development or insisting on minimum distances between new telecommunications development and existing development. In the latest Report from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), the mobile operators association claim “there is no scientific basis for establishing safe distances between base-stations (masts) and areas of public occupancy, as has been suggested in some countries. However, the planning guidance is only ‘guidance’ and since the NRPB report accepts there is a risk warranting a precautionary approach then local authorities have good cause to protect their residents from the risk. But would this ‘safe distance’ stand up as a material consideration in the event the enquiry implemented it as a precautionary policy? If we look closer at the planning guidance it says authorities should not insist on minimum (safe) distances between existing masts and newly proposed ones. Note that it does not say ‘no minimum distances between new developments and sensitive areas’. Sensitive areas being schools, nurseries etc, which the NRPB recommend should not be near the main beam of intensity from any mast. However, the guidance does say that authorities should not implement their own precautionary policies. This of course is diluted further on in the guidance where it says as long as the radiation emissions meet international (ICNIRP) guidelines then it is no longer necessary for local authorities to consider health aspects and concerns about them. But why stop at schools and hospitals? Many children spend just as much, if not more time, at home where a microwave phone mast can be erected, a preposterous situation. The human rights of people are clearly being ignored when a mast, said to be potentially dangerous to health, is erected outside a child’s bedroom without any consent. Now add to this ridiculous situation the ICNIRP guidelines. These don’t even protect the public from non-thermal chronic exposure to pulsed microwave radiation from a mast. Notably the NRPB report talks about ‘cumulitive’ radiation and when sharing masts the overall cumulative emissions should not exceed the guidelines? Where’s the research that takes into account cumulative exposure and the effects thereof? [shadow=red,left,300]The fact is, there isn’t any![/shadow] The ultimate question is, if Sefton council implement an “agreed safe distance” from schools, residential properties, childrens' nurseries and hospitals, and then refused a mast application on those grounds, would the operator appeal, and if so would they win or lose on appeal? I’d suggest that the mobile operators, although ignorant of residents wishes on this issue, would win on appeal as they’ve done in the past when local authorities have refused masts on health grounds. But what do you think?Post your replies in here and let's have a vote on what's the best step a local authority can take to ensure the safety of the public it serves from microwave mobile phone masts. Cancer link worries could prompt phone masts ban July 7 2006 TO VIEW THE NEWS ARTICLE YOU WILL NEED TO COPY & PASTE THE TEXT BELOW INTO YOUR BROWSERS ADDRESS BAR THEN CLICK GO (OR PRESS the ENTER/RETURN key) icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17343506%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=cancer%2dlink%2dworries%2dcould%2dprompt%2dphone%2dmasts%2dban-name_page.html
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Jul 10, 2006 20:50:29 GMT
So what is ‘official’ ?According to Liverpool’s Daily Post, Sefton council are currently in the process of conducting an ‘official enquiry’ into the effects of mobile phone masts on residents’ health and house prices. The ultimate question is, if Sefton council implement an “agreed safe distance” from schools, residential properties, childrens' nurseries and hospitals, and then refused a mast application on those grounds, would the operator appeal, and if so would they win or lose on appeal? I’d suggest that the mobile operators, although ignorant of residents wishes on this issue, would win on appeal as they’ve done in the past when local authorities have refused masts on health grounds. But what do you think?Post your replies in here and let's have a vote on what's the best step a local authority can take to ensure the safety of the public it serves from microwave mobile phone masts. Hi Gary, cheers for that. I think what Sefton are doing is a brave move when it comes down to it. What they might face though, alongside legislation that doesn't currently take health concerns into consideration with mast applications, is increasing pressure from central government, ie. in the form of threats which are carried through to withdraw grants and whatever penalties central government can think of. Sefton Council though are acting within a climate now of strong public opposition to a decrease in local authority power into the hands of quangos and the private sector. Here's an interesting report: www.lgiu.gov.uk/module1-detail.jsp?section=media_lgiu&id=32Still, if other councils were to follow suit in support it would be an interesting challenge not just on Mast legislation, but also to central government's erosion of local authority power and their accountability to residents. Do bear in mind though that 'government' isn't my favourite word!! ;D Sefton looks like a potential Lib dem/Conservative political challenge to Labour policy - I expect they're scratching each other's eyes out in the council chambers ;D eeeeeek. Hope to see you soon, good speaking with you Sat evening. cheers Mitch
|
|