Education

| Submit CommentSubmit Comments | View Comments(20)
OBJECTION: Clarendon Fold head Martin Kelly
OBJECTION: Clarendon Fold head Martin Kelly

advertisement

Phone mast health shock

Brian Lashley
10/ 2/2005

FRESH doubts about the safety of mobile phone masts near schools have been triggered by a government inspector.

George Baird, from the Planning Inspectorate, said concern about health risks was one reason for rejecting an appeal by mobile giant Orange.

It wanted to put a 15-metre mast 100 metres from Clarendon Fields Community Primary School in Dukinfield, Tameside.

It is thought to be the first time health concerns have been cited by a government inspector blocking a phone mast.

In his report, Mr Baird wrote: "The reason for refusal refers to concern about the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields from the proposed equipment, given that the site adjoins the Clarendon Fields Community Primary School, public open space and houses in Clarendon Street and Angel Close.

"I acknowledge that such fears are relevant to my decision."

Geoff Williams from Mast Sanity, which campaigns against phone masts in sensitive areas, said: "I believe that it is the first time that an inspector has used safety as a reason. The government advice remains confusing.

"In their guidelines they say in one paragraph health can be considered then, in the next, health doesn't need to be considered.

"I believe the inspector's words in this case will give a lot of hope to a lot of people."

Mr Baird's other reasons for refusal were the "harsh and hostile appearance" of the mast and its "conflict with development plan policy".

Decision

Members of the Speakers Panel, which considers planning applications for Tameside Council, read Mr Baird's report and voted unanimously to reject an application to erect a scaled-down version of the mast in the grounds of Dukinfield Cricket Club, adjoining the school.

The panel voted to uphold the inspector's decision on the "perceived health risks".

Local councillors, residents and school head Martin Kelly objected to the application.

A report by British scientists from the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation said exposure levels from mobile base stations were extremely low and "unlikely" to pose a health risk.

But Tameside councillor John Taylor said: "When an expert finally says `yes they are definitely safe', then I will believe they are.

"I might not know all the technical data, but the inspector's explanation for refusal is very clear."

A spokesman for Orange said: "Planning guidance means the decision maker is entitled to weigh public concerns as part of the process.

"There is no evidence linking mobile technology with ill health."

In November last year, the Appeal Court threw out a test case over a decision to allow the siting of a mobile phone mast near three schools.

The decision came months after three giant mobile firms won a High Court battle for the right to put up a 25-metre mast in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, despite health concerns and opposition from deputy prime minister John Prescott.

Should phone masts be sited near schools? Have your say.


| Submit CommentSubmit Comments | View CommentsView Comments(20)


Most recent 2 of 20 user comments

   HELP! One mast has already been passed at our new sports complex, that is filled with local people, and now the factory next to it has applied to errect a mast. We are a new housing estate next to these two sites with lots of children, there is a large heavilly populated council estate next to these two sites . Our Meltham Town council dont seam to care, they are all in favour so they can connect better to their mobile network. Is their any point in fighting when it appears that planning has passsed these mast errections in a foregone conclusion. When i asked our local councillor "why couldn't they put it on that far away hill", she replied, "the farmer said it would affect his sheep!!!! Well i thought people were important, obviously not as important as sheep.
LYNN DYSON, MELTHAM, HUDDERSFIELD.
18/09/2005 at 21:08

Offensive or Inappropriate?

   Beware of lazy thinking. About one in three people in the UK will develop cancer in their lifetime. So there are always so called 'cancer clusters'. In fact there are plenty of 'clusters' of different sorts, and what ties them together is a) their mathematical probability, and b) the complete absence of a mobile telephone masts in most cases. How can people just leap to the conclusion that masts are to blame? Could it be instead that some people experience irrational anxiety and get ill in minor ways because they have convinced themselves and each other that the telephone mast 50 metres from their home is blasting out lethal rays? Is there actually a particular type of person who gets stressed out by everything and makes a lot of noise b" what's the life expectancy of someone constantly on the brink of a seizure?
John, Boston, Lincolnshire
14/04/2005 at 18:03

Offensive or Inappropriate?

Newsletter Sign Up
 
Have your say Sign up to the weekly news
update

Latest stories
 

 
Internal links
 
Snow chaos
 

Did the authorities do enough to prepare for the icy conditions?

7%
93%