Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Mast Action UK
These cases are representative of the type of
problems that Mast Action UK members and other groups have experienced.
|Arrogation of local democracy.
Local council with full support of the entire community refused
mast next to Primary School. Orange took this to Appeal where
the Planning Inspector placed no weight on the concerns of those
the mast would directly affect and overruled the local democracy.
The people of Fowey mounted a legal challenge to Orange who then
withdrew their application.
|Inconsistency within DETR||Ipswich
2a Richard Ogier DETR Inspector dismisses health concerns
5.12.2000 (see para 12) ,
2b Richard Ogier DETR Inspector upholds health concerns 2.12.2001
(see para 12-14) 1
2c Evidence of property devaluation.
|Disparity in local government planning policy.
If the MP for Sedgefield can influence local planning decisions,
should this not be possible in all constituencies?
|Ref 4||Bishops Srortford, Hertfordshire
|Irregularities in planning procedures.
|Ref 5||Countesthorpe, Leicester
|Abuse of planning law||
||22 metre monople|
Forty-nine metres from nearest home. Four metres from Parish
Council playing field leased to childrens football club. Blaby
District Council granted planning permission for mast December
1999. Since discovered that mast is situated three metres to the
South, eleven metres to the West of the position agreed, and is
two metres higher than planning permitted. Blaby Council have
failed to take enforcement action against One2One. There was due
to be a Council Enquiry on 28 March 2000. One2One installed the
mast one week before the Enquiry, it has yet to be commissioned.
A complaint has been submitted to the Local Government Ombudsman
sitting grounds of maladministration.
|Ref 6||Gainsborough, Lincolnshire
|Centre of housing estate
|Serious loss of amenity eight metres from nearest home.
Exploitation by the operator of the planning system has meant
that after the initial application there has been no control over
the number of additions. Plans are in hand for six new ariels
plus booster station on existing site.
|Ref 6a Illustration of lack of specific guidance from DETR
|Ref 7||Isle of Wight||One2One
|Abust of local democracy.||
Despite overwhelming objections from local school and residents
the planning committee not only recommended approval but also
"stressed that application of this nature seek approval of
siting and appearance only", which contravenes Article 6
of Human Rights Act.
|Ref 8||Hertfordshire County Council vs Local Authority Planning
|Discontinuity and conflict in Local Government planning policy.
East Hertfordshire District Council have refused permission
for Lampost mast due to concern from local residents. This is
in direct conflict with Hertfordshire County Council agreement
with Orange to replace lamposts with masts.
|Ref 9||Mickleover, Derby
|Breach of planning control.|
Serious loss of amenity.
|Ref 10||Norwich, Norfolk.
|Peter Colby Commercials|
School Lane, Sprowston.
|Failure of Local Government Planning System.
Sprowston Parish Council confirmed commencement of work on
installation, which is not completed. Council Chairman quoted
as saying "the Parish Council was against it because of possible
future development of the area for residential use, it is just
unfortunate Broadland failed to get any papers in before the due
date". NB: Broadland District Council failed to notify BT
Cellnet of its objections to the pole within the required 42-day
time limit. Regardless of resident's views, because of the "oversight"
the company was legally allowed to go ahead with its plans. The
landowner has since requested to withdraw from the contract. This
case is ongoing.
|Ref 11||Geoffs Oak JMI|
Infant and Nursery School
Aggressive business practices. Apparent collusion with Hertfordshire
County Council see enclosed letters. Despite more than five years
of campaigning at local and national level, this mast is still
on the school premises in close proximity to local residents.
The school children's parents and local community were totally
disenfranchised from the consultation process and denied the right
to a voice in the decisions that affect quality of life and their
families future. Five years on as many of our members will testify,
this arrogation of rights is still prevalent.
|Ref 12||Bells Hill|
|Wealth before Health.||
Strathclyde Regional Council identified a cancer cluster
in this area close to a Scottish Power Sub-Station. Despite grave
concerns for health in this particularly sensitive area, BT Cellnet
are persisting with plans to install a mast. The fact of local
residents legitimate concerns for health, has been blatantly disregarded
by BT who state "At the moment the use of mobile phones is
growing so fast that we have to match that growth with the coverage
|Impact of non-rational mast siting on individuals and the community at large.
|| Mast Action UK|
The fact that MAUK, a rapidly expanding organisation with
currently over 100 groups across the UK exists is proof that insensitive
siting of masts does adversely affect the daily lives, peace of
mind and sense of wellbeing of a growing number of people in this
In May 2000, the Government commissioned the Stewart Report
on Mobile Phones and Health which gave as its overriding recommendation
the use of caution when siting maststhis has been blatantly
ignored and abused by the mobile phone industry.
MAUK receives many inquiries every day from people who feel
angry and outraged by current mobile phone mast siting policy
in the UK which provides valuable data about the impact this has
on families and communities across the country. The most commonly
expressed dissatisfaction with the present system, which is routinely
ignored by the operators, local and central Government is:
being denied a fair and impartial hearing (see
Article 6 Human Rights Act 1998); and
being disenfranchised from the planning and decision
making processes which impact heavily on the quality of life for
individuals, families and community.
Increasingly, people feel that the really important decisions
which most affect their homes, daily lives, financial security
and happiness, are being taken by "others" with little
or sense of social responsibility for those who live in close
proximity to masts 24 hours of the day not to mention concern
for future outcomes to society from the widespread proliferation
of masts across the UK.
The historical and traditional role of local government is
responsibility for the safety and protection of the community
and the environment. Increasingly, the evidence suggests an insidious
drift away from this legal duty of care, by schools and local
government, in favour of commercial interests and financial considerations.
These institutions have been sanctioned in this policy by
the recent directive issued 29 June 2000 by Planning Minister
Nick Raynesford addressed to "all Council Leaders" which
stated "it should not be necessary for a Local Planning Authority,
in processing an Application, to consider health effects further".
The public report to MAUK that their reactions to this situation
include feelings of:
anger, outrage, desperation, frustration, worry,
uncertainty, fear, animosity, distress and powerlessness;
disaffection with local and, in particular, central
mistrust in the processes and values of democracy
on which our system of government is founded.
These key factors are well known causes of stress and long
exposure can trigger:
destabillisation of the family;
social unrest, disharmony and fragmentation;
civil disobedience in normally law abiding citizens;
breakdown in the social fabric of the community.
MAUK can report that the current siting policy of mobile
masts adversely affects and disrupts the daily routines and lives
of many families across the country. Many people already live
close to masts 24 hours a day and are campaigning to get them
removed. Many others are involved in campaign activities to stop
masts being erected near them. This takes up their time, saps
their mental and physical energy and their financial resources.
Some people have actually given up their usual employment or study
courses to fight campaigns in their communities.
It is recognised by health professionals that long term stress
is a known precondition for the onset of serious and life threatening
illness. It also severely depresses the immune system affecting
the normal functioning of the body's systems.
Stewart, section 1.31 made reference to this as "the
well being of people being indirectly adversely affected which
could in some people have adverse health effects".
Newport and Tandridge Court of Appeal (1998) cited "genuine
public fear and concern, even if the fear is irrational and not
based upon evidence" as a material planning consideration.
The siting of mobile phone base stations close to populations
presents an unquantifiable risk, which is the common sense rationale
behind the Stewart recommendation for the "precautionary
principle" to be used when siting base stations.
At present there may be no proof of harm, but neither is
there proof of no harm. There is however, acknowledged risk and
serious concern for vulnerable groups exposed to radiation from
masts: babies and children whose cells are still dividing, the
sick and elderly whose immune systems are depressed, those suffering
from epilepsy and other neurological conditions. There are also
reported cases of adverse effects on hearing and from the users
of hearing aids and pace makers.
The health effects of this new technology on people; using
microwave low frequency pulsating radiation, is not yet fully
understood and may take another 15 to 20 years to emerge. By which
time it would be too late to prevent another public health disaster.
In the light of the many recent health scares, and public
mistrust of government assurances regarding health and safety,
MAUK believes the citizens of the UK have the right to enjoy their
homes and live without the fear of radiation. We are campaigning
for the sensible siting of masts.
Societies are judged by their values, by the way in which
people behave towards one another, by our sense of social responsibility.
In view of the compelling evidence against siting masts in the
midst of populations, with all the attendant acknowledged risks
to those people the question now is: do we care enough about the
welfare of our fellow human beings to put their interests before
12 March 2001
Not printed. Back