23
June 2003
Dear
Sir/Madam
D OF E APPEAL REFERENCE:
APP/V0510/A/03/1117079
We
are a campaign called ‘Site Masts Sensibly’. We are made up of a group of
residents from East Cambs and Forest Heath, who are writing to you on behalf of
the local community to convey their fear, concern and anger over the Tetra
telecommunications mast, which has been erected in a highly populated,
residential area. The location is
Newmarket Town Football Club, a small football ground, which, unlike others is
based in the centre of a diversely populated area. It is very close to two primary schools, family homes and
retired residents. This mast is as
close as 55 metres to the nearest house.
The TETRA mast
was moved from Icewell Hill Flats in Newmarket, after residents started a
campaign, complaining about the perceived health risks. Forest Heath Planning Department supported
their community and the mast was removed. The intention was that it was going
to be sited in a more suitable location, in a non-residential area away from
schools and hospitals.
The original mast erected on
the Football ground had planning permission for mobile phone antenna only, and
the installation of 3 no. collinear antennas was undertaken on 13 February 2003
under cover of darkness, without planning permission and was only noticed by a
local resident who complained to the District Council. East Cambs District Council had warned
Airwave MM02 Ltd in writing that they needed full planning permission but they
repeatedly denied that they were planning to erect TETRA antennas.
The community is horrified at
the underhanded way Airwave MM02 Ltd have behaved by erecting this mast without
planning permission and that it is still up and transmitting.
East Cambs District Council
has now rejected Airwave MM02 Ltd application for Retrospective planning permission.
Our
campaign has the backing of the local residents, our two MP’s James Paice and
Richard Spring, County Councillor Judy Broadway, District Councillors, the
Parish Council and MEP, Andrew Duff plus local General Practitioner’s, the
Board of Governors of the two primary Schools, Ditton Lodge and All Saints and
the National Campaign group Mast Sanity.
The
Campaign has received extensive TV and radio coverage, regular coverage in the
local newspapers and support from the local community who have written 125
letters of objection and signed a 500+ signature petition. This is how great the public fear and
concern is over this TETRA telecommunications mast.
Our main areas of
concern are:
·
Health
Risks – It is no longer
possible to argue that health is not a material planning consideration (see
court cases below). Nobody knows what
the long-term health risks will be from these masts – they pulse microwaved
radiation at a very low frequency 17Hz.
It can hardly be disputed that to enjoy an acceptable quality of life
requires more than simply an absence of terminal disease.
The government sponsored ‘Stewart Report - March
2001’ clearly does not rule out the possible harmful effects of exposure to low
level electromagnetic fields. The Stewart Report recommends a
precautionary approach when siting these masts. It clearly states that masts should not be near schools, near
the homes of children or other vulnerable people.
Sir William Stewart gave evidence to the Department of Trade & Industry and Parliamentary Select Committee and when questioned about the frequency that Tetra emits on and the fact that in the ‘Stewart Report’ he had strongly urged frequencies around 16 Hz be avoided for health reasons, he said, “Tetra was a hazard”.
Local residents within a large circumference of the mast have been complaining of unexplained headaches, tiredness and a general feeling of ill health and these problems have been ascribed by them to the erection of the Tetra telecommunications mast.
April 2003 – Southampton City Council v’s Hutchison 3g Orange.
High Court cases (R.v.Stockport MBC exparte Smith – The Honourable Mr Justice Ouseley – Case No. CO/159/2001 & The Queen on the application of Julia Herman & Others v Winchester City Council & Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd – Mr Justice Hooper & The Honourable Mr Justice Ouseley – Case No. CO/956/2001).
·
The
installation is a very short distance away from two primary schools and
in a residential area.
Children are particularly
vulnerable because of the increased rate at which their cells divide (making
them more susceptible to genetic damage) and because their nervous system is
still developing – the smaller size of their heads and their thinner skulls
increasing the amount of radiation that they absorb. Particularly vulnerable to interference by the pulsed microwave
radiation used in GSM is their electrical brain-wave activity, which does not
settle into a stable pattern until puberty.
The radiation locks onto brainwaves and alters its action affecting the
child’s learning ability and its behaviour and in many cases, leading to
disruptive behaviour.
This mast is near two Primary Schools, Ditton Lodge
and All Saints Schools, both of which are less than ½ km away. Neither school was aware of the change of
usage of the mast to Tetra.
‘Planning Policy Guidance Note 8’ states “where a
mast is to be installed on or near a school or college it is important that
operators discuss the proposed development with the relevant body of the school
or college concerned before submitting an application for planning
permission”. The operator has not
discussed this issue with the Headteacher, Mr Rolfe, at Ditton Lodge Primary
School or the Governors or with Mr Bell, Headteacher at All Saints Primary
School or the Governors and therefore this application should surely be
invalid. Legislation directs the
Council to let the schools know and I would argue that the Planning Department
by not going to directly to the Headteachers of either school, is contravening
this legislation. Therefore, if the
decision goes to accept retrospective planning permission, the decision will be
unlawful.
Chris Mayle, Chairman of the Campaign for Planning
Sanity, and Mr Alan Meyer, Legal Advisor to Mast Action UK, had a meeting with
the former Planning Minister, Lord Falconer, who told them he issued
instructions to planning officers that no mast of any kind should
be sited nearer to a school or its boundaries than 150 yards, thus admitting
that there is extra risks to children.
We would like to request that the Planning Inspector,
views the mast from the two local Primary Schools, Ditton Lodge and All Saints
Schools.
·
Visual
impact/loss of personal amenity - The mast can be seen for miles around and clearly visible from homes,
thus affecting the quality of life – leading to loss of amenity. Local residents are very angry and
worried about the dangers of this mast, whether it is perceived or real and
this has already caused a considerable amount of anxiety, worry & stress
and fear of what could happen to them and their children. The community is
being made to feel unsafe. Genuine public perception of danger is a valid
planning consideration.
The mast has been erected just 64m from Mr & Mrs Booth’s home of 53 New Cheveley Road.
The Human Rights Act (Oct 2002 -article 8) states “You have the right to respect: for your private & family life & your home”
The mast is visually very intrusive to the Booth’s. They have an unobstructed view of the mast from their back garden. It is a constant reminder of the fear and anxiety they feel and is destructive to their quality of life & impairs their everyday environment. This is the same for many other residents in the area.
We would like to ask the Planning Inspector to view
the mast from Mr & Mrs Booth’s back garden to see for themselves how
intrusive it is to them. Mr & Mrs
Booth have written separately to convey their objections.
·
Have
alternative sites been explored? It is the legal obligation of Airwave MM02
Ltd to explore all other alternative sites. We do not believe that this has
been done. In fact we have had it
confirmed from East Cambs District Council, that an alternative and more
appropriate site on ‘Warren Hill’ would give better coverage for the
Police in the villages to the East of Newmarket. The current site does not provide coverage for villages to the
East. The Council also has evidence
that the site provider of Warren Hill (Highpoint Communications) are willing to
consider this Tetra mast (see 4.3 of ‘Technical Appraisal of Planning
Application’ by Sue Finlayson for East Cambs District Council).
We would also
like to inform the Planning Inspectorate that there is a proposal to build 11
new 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings on the grounds of the former Garage in Cricket
Field Road which runs along the bottom of the football ground and that Wilson
Connelly Homes are actually in the process of building 60 new 2 and 3 bedroom
properties aimed at families on the waste ground on the other side of the
railway line.
In conclusion,
we, on behalf of all the local residents believe it to be completely
unreasonable to allow this mast to continue to be sited in what is already, a
highly populated residential area and whose population is going to increase
greatly in the very near future. We
hope that you will take all of the above important concerns of the community
into consideration when making your decision about this appeal.
We, on behalf of
the community cannot stress more strongly how great the public concern, fear
and anger is over this Tetra telecommunications mast.
Please could send
us a copy of the appeal decision, confirm receipt of this letter and confirm
that visits will be made by the Planning Inspector to view the mast from both
Schools and Mr & Mrs Booth’s back garden.
Yours sincerely
On behalf of the
Local Community
Enc (scrap book
of press coverage)