Your letters maybe useful to other campaigns.. please send them to us so that they can appear on this page. All letters sent by you and your campaign regardless of who they are to, will be useful to someone
Let us know what politicians are receiving and how they are dealing with this situation. We want to know who's ignoring it and who is truly representing their constituents.
letters for planning appeals
letters to politicians
letters from mast sanity to politicians
letters received from politicians
letters received from Govt ministers
letters to industry
letters from industry
letters to press
note those marked with ** can be sent by Mast Sanity or Planning Sanity (on headed paper) on your behalf, tailored to your particular situation.
Please email us with your requirements
Please not do not send any letters with Mast Sanity or Planning Sanity headed paper without prior permission. People have sent numerous letters with our headed paper to local authorities, landowners etc where we would not normally recommend sending a letter .. in particular where there is NO application and also where multiple letters have been sent seemingly from Mast Sanity for the same application!!
Letter to Local Planning Authorities setting out the legal position on health - not available yet **
Standard Letter for Masts on Church Land not yet available
Letter Suitable for Sending to Ombudsman - not available yet
Standard Letter for Sending to Operators on the Traffic Light scheme - not available yet
Letter to DTI requesting prosecution for failing to affix Sch2 notice Still being compiled
Letter requesting that the Council revoke planning/prior approval permission for a phone mast
Letter to local authority who were reluctant to let local community comment on a prior approval application
Letter to Property Department of Council on aspects relating to the lease on council owned land, and the failure of a sports club to first obtain permission from council to grant lease to phone operator.
note we can personalise these to your requirements. Though you are willing to use the content of these letters for your campaign please do not send with our logo or names on. We need to know exactly where our letters are going and to who!This is the main letter of objection to operators, add your local details, and send to ALL the operators with phone masts in your community
Letter from 'PACT' (local group) to local authority (Tetra - and temp installation)
letters to politicians (local campaigners)
letters/lobbies from mast sanity to politicians
(note a number of our lobbies are not included due to lack of documentation kept. In future all lobbies will be reported and parliamentary reactions - if any - reported)
We would like to bring to your attention that thousands of people across the country are very concerned and angry about the issue of the siting of masts.
A mass movement of ordinary families, a grass roots community response to a major public health issue that affects them personally and where they see
no recognition of the major health concerns, which have now been shown by independent international research to be completely realistic. People fighting the dangerous siting of TETRA masts find that what is supposed to be a neutral planning process being manipulated and distorted to ensure that the masts go up on sites very close to homes, schools, hospitals and other sensitive locations. The health guidelines constantly quoted by all mast operators and the Government are nothing of the sort. The ICNIRP guidelines are shockingly deficient. They cover one effect only on the human system of the low level microwave radiation absorbed from TETRA base stations 24 hours a day. This is a major public health scandal which for the last three years has attracted and is currently attracting constant publicity on regional and national TV, radio stations and press. The one serious omission is a real awareness leading to action to protect the health, notably of children, the sick and the elderly by our elected representatives at all levels.
Everyone who has received the attached briefing has now to be aware of how critical the situation is countrywide. Mast Sanity is receiving weekly reports from ordinary residents near TETRA masts of how their lives are being disrupted by the health effects from absorbing the radiation - their sleep is interrupted up to 10 times a night, they have severe and repeated migraine headaches, they are suffering from nose bleeds, they have developed in some cases all over skin rashes. None of these has been experienced previously by the people reporting the effects of TETRA. The speed with which these symptoms occurred - within days of TETRA trials starting - has surprised even the independent British scientists expert in this field who warned that they would be experienced. This calls into question their 10 year forecast of the emergence of tumours, cancers and cataracts as a result of this intensive absorption of low level microwave radiation by thousands of ordinary people across the country. These extreme effects could well appear much sooner.
Rank and file members of the Police are increasingly alarmed at the growing number among them reporting previously unknown ill health symptoms - similar to the above but including deafness from using TETRA handsets and in-vehicle equipment.
What are you going to do to protect your constituents and your local police from this serious harm?
Regards, Pamela Chapman (Mrs) Mast Sanity Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator.
Mast Sanity - National Campaign for the sensible siting of phone masts.
Tel: 0161-278 3355. Advice Line: 08704 322 377.
All MPs on the list, a large percentage of MEPs and all Welsh Assembly members have been lobbied via e-mail re. the Freiburger documentation.
Mast Sanity Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator.
May I take this opportunity of drawing to your attention the following and urge that you contribute to the motion.
Mast Sanity Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator
|MOBILE PHONE MASTS ON SCHOOL SITES||11.06.02|
|That this House calls on the Government to strengthen its precautionary approach to the siting of mobile phone masts by introducing a moratorium on sites on or near to schools and by re-drafting PPG8 to make it clear that planning authorities can reject applications on the grounds of local public health concerns.|
|Mr Mark Oaten|
|Mr Colin Breed||Dr Vincent Cable||Mrs Ann Cryer|
|Mr Terry Davis||Mr David Drew||Mr Mike Hancock|
|Mr Nigel Jones||Mr Paul Keetch||Mr Elfyn Llwyd|
|Mr Andrew MacKay||Bob Russell||Mr Gerry Steinberg|
RE: TELECOMMUNICATION INSTALLATIONS ON BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES THAT DO NOT EXCEED 4 METRES IN HEIGHT
Mast Sanity is the sister organisation to the Campaign for Planning Sanity a national organisation offering free advice to local communities concerned with adverse and inappropriate development. Mast Sanity is dealing with the increasing concerns over the installation of inappropriately sited telecommunication installations.
An issue that is increasingly being brought to our attention through the CfPS helpline is the procedure that Telecommunication Operators use to erect installations on buildings and other structures, where the installation is 4 metres or less in height. This problem is now accounting for about 10% of our inquiries, and the numbers of people with concerns relating to these specific installations is increasing. Instances are coming to our attention where permission has been refused by local planning authorities, only to find that minor alterations to the proposals are made, and then the Operators erect the installation, without any reference to the local authority.
A.2(4)(b) of Part 24 of The Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001 implies that installation of antenna on a building or other structures (other than a mast) that does not exceed 4 metres requires NO permission what so ever.
This flies in the face of other sections of Part 24, and therefore clarity is required as to whether these installations can be installed with no permission, and if they can, what is the exact criteria that should be applied. In order to clarify the situation the issue should be raised through a question in the House. We set out below what we consider to be the correct position, and what we believe some local authorities are accepting as being correct. There is a similar but separate concern relating to lamp posts which we outline at the end of this letter, and which could potentially see 10,000s of antenna being installed in every borough, without any permission being sought.
Part 24 A. sets out that permission is approved by the General Permitted Development Order subject to a list of exclusions which are set out in A.1(a) to (o). A.4 sets out the interpretations of Class A installations. This includes "small antenna" which is set out as meaning:
(i) is for the use in connection with a telephone system operating on a point to fixed multi-point basis;
(ii) does not exceed 50 centimetres in any linear measurement; and
(iii) does not, in any two-dimensional profile, have an area exceeding 1,591 square centimetres,
and any calculation for the purposes of (ii) and (iii) shall exclude any feed element, reinforcing rim mounting and brackets.
A.1(M) through to (o) sets out the exclusions relating to small antenna. We are concerned only with those under Clause (o) which states:
(o) in the case of the installation, alteration or replacement of a small antenna on a building which is not a dwelling house or within the curtilage of a dwelling house - *
(i) the building is on article 1(5) land;
(ii) the building is less than 15 metres in height, and the development would result in the presence on that building of more than one such antenna; or *
(iii) the building is 15 metres or more in height, and the development would result in the presence on that building of more than two such antennas. *
We are concerned with both (ii) and (iii), which clearly indicates that small antenna on a building or structure are not excluded installations, providing that there is not more than one on a building of 15 metres or less, and two on a building over 15 metres in height. The clear intention of this is to cater for the minor installations such as those used for the reception of satellite TV reception.
Section A.2 is headed conditions, and A.2(4) states:
(4) Class A development -
(a) on article 1(5) land or land which is, or is within, a site of special scientific interest, or
(b) on any other land and consisting of the construction, installation, alteration or replacement of a mast; or of an antenna on a building or structure (other than a mast) where the antenna (including any supporting structure) would exceed the height of the building or structure at the point where it is installed or to be installed by 4 metres or more; or of a public call box;* or of radio equipment housing with a volume in excess of 2.5 cubic metres; or of development ancillary to radio equipment housing
is permitted subject, except in case of emergency, to the conditions set out in A.3.
(*BT has already announced its intention to put additional equipment in call boxes to allow internet access)
The operators argue that this section overrides all the other exclusions set out in A.1, providing the antenna and structure (mast) does not exceed the height of the building by 4metres. If this was true it would make a mockery of those conditions clearly intended to control installations on buildings, which goes into detail as to the size of the installation to be placed on buildings, and beggars believe that a clause relating to this type of installation would not have been included within A.1, when the full range of other exclusions are considered, illustrations being A.1(c) and (d):
(c) in the case of the installation, alteration or replacement of apparatus on a building or other structure, the height of the apparatus (taken by itself) would exceed -
(i) 15 metres, where it is installed, or is to be installed, on a building or other structure which is 30 metres or more in height; or
(ii) 10 metres in any other case;
(d) in the case of the installation, alteration or replacement of apparatus on a building or other structure, the highest part of the apparatus when installed, altered or replaced would exceed the height of the highest part of the building or structure by more than -
(i) 10 metres, in the case of a building or structure which is 30 metres or more in height;
(ii) 8 metres, in the case of a building or structure which is more than 15 metres but less than 30 metres in height; or
(iii) 6 metres in any other case;
Therefore our case is that A.2(4) cannot be applied as the operators maintain that they do not need to apply to the local planning authority for determination whether prior approval is required. Which may very well have been the case if it was not for Clause A.1(o). If the installation was a small antenna, then under A.1(o) they could only erect one or two antenna, but if it was not a small antenna (in other words a normal size antenna) then they could erect as many as they like under A.2(4), providing that the installation was not more than 4 metres higher than the building or structure, in both cases without applying for any permission what so ever.
Put into practice that would mean that three small antenna, would not be allowed, but that three large antenna would be allowed without applying for a determination as to whether prior approval was required. The situation is that many installations are being constructed, on buildings, and structures such as water towers, without applying for permitted development. Paragraphs 43 and 44 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 Telecommunications, refers to minor installations, and the de minimus principle. Which broadly put refers to small developments of an insignificant nature, and which do not alter the external appearance of a building. A 4 metre high structure could not be said in any way to come within that remit.
We therefore conclude one of two things either there is a major loop hole being allowed to Operators, or they are being allowed to be economical with the wording of the Development order, in either case the matter requires clarification. If this is a deliberate loop hole to allow installations to proceed without any control whatsoever then it makes a mockery of the whole system, which causes stress to local communities, who have NO opportunity to object, or even challenge the installation, even if that installation is in a sensitive location.
We would therefore be grateful if you could raise this issue in the House in order that the matter can be clarified. And if it is found that it is a deliberate loop hole, that you will join with us in condemning this provision within the system, and campaign for its removal without delay.
A further concern we are facing is that of the installation of antenna on street furniture, in particular street lamps. Whilst at present these account for only a few of the thousands of applications, a worrying alteration is developing in at least one local authority, which we believe is only the tip of the potential iceberg. In the case of Stoke on Trent the local authority have put out to tender 25,000 lamp posts for renewal, and amongst the tenderers are those wanting to place antennas within the lamp posts. As the law stands, they would be entitled to place one antenna on each lamppost without any reference to anyone. They would not even require the need to seek permitted development.
Naturally we view these developments with real concern, not only from the arguments relating to phone masts, but from the viewpoint of credibility of the entire planning system. If controversial developments are allowed without any reference to the planning authority, and the public are not allowed to comment, then the public will become very concerned. If we multiply this by the numbers that are potentially possible in the Stoke case, and we shall see major revolts. It is the view of CfPS that for the planing system to be acceptable to the public, then it must be transparent in its dealings, the public must feel that their views are being taken on board, and that the LPA are working in the interests of the wider community, that will not happen when the system allows for wholesale provision of controversial developments to place without any permission being sought or granted.
Again we would be grateful for any clarity you could bring to this situation through questions being asked in the house.
Should you wish to discuss this issue further please do not hesitate in contacting us.
Pamela Chapman (Mrs)
Mast Sanity Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator.
NB This includes blocks of flats
May I take this opportunity of introducing to you the Campaign for Planning Sanity. This is an established national organisation, advising campaign groups on how to fight adverse planning applications. We have now opened a new branch of this organisation called Mast Sanity, and I have been appointed their Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator.
Mast Sanity is in the process of uniting hundreds of campaign groups across the country in order that they can join together in a common cause and resist the telecommunication companies. Mast Sanity advise and represent both campaign groups and local councils on how to appropriately refuse applications for masts. We are not against masts and base stations, but only their “insensitive siting and location”. Our work also includes advice to individual councillors, local authorities and other NGOs, as well as preparing cases and representing local communities at planning inquiries. We also organise specialist training events aimed at giving local communities the tools and expertise needed to best present their cases.
The reason we have chosen to contact you is because some of your constituents have told us of your interest in the mobile phone mast problem. They may have expressed to you their grave concerns about the potential adverse health effects of these installations. Therefore, our principle objective is to request that you offer your support to the Bill being promoted by Mr. Frank Field (MP, Birkenhead) and due for its second reading on Friday, 21st June, 2002. (There is a possibility that this might not get a hearing; please could you use your influence to ensure that the Bill is discussed by the House?)
We also request that you give consideration to supporting the following amendment to that Bill, which is required to prevent the loophole of those applications being decided by the permitted development procedure from escaping the thrust of the Bill which is to outlaw the excessive use of the twin tracking process.
In 1(2)(1) before the words “for the development” add the following:
A local planning authority may decline to determine an application for planning permission or permitted development
After 1(2)(1) at the following passage:
(a) For the avoidance of doubt where such permitted development is declined to be determined under this Act then such none determination shall be deemed to be a determination that prior approval is first required, and that such prior approval is refused.
We are urging all MPs to consider joining the growing ranks of the all-party ‘Phone Mast Group’ in order that your constituents’ views can be better expressed through the united force this group offers to parliamentarians. (For more information, contact Phil Willis, MP, Lib. Dem., Harrogate)
I would like to take this opportunity of thanking you for your time taken in reading this note, and would hope that we can develop a partnership with a view to promoting residents’ rights against commercial interests.
Kind Regards, Pamela Chapman (Mrs)Mast Sanity Parliamentary Lobby Co-ordinator
letters/responses to lobbies received from politicians to Mast Sanity
As this is new section we have not kept all responses from politicians. for now we can report we have had postive responses to lobbies from the following politicians
Andrew Hunter, MP, Chris Pond, MP , Andrew Selous, MP ,Paul Truswell, MP , Angela Browning, MP , Phil Willis, MP , Frank Cook, MP , Kali Mountford, MP, Peter Bottomley, MP, Win Griffiths, MP , David Amess, MP, Mark Francois, MP , Mrs Marion Roe, MP , Harry Barnes, MP , Dr Howard Stoate, MP , Bill Tynan, MP , Mark Oaten, MP , Brian Gibbons, AM, Dafydd Wigley AM, Tamsin Dunwoody-Kneafsey, AM, Leanne Wood, AM, Peter Black, AM , Leighton Andrews, AM, Tom McCabe, MSP, Margaret Mitchell, MSP, Carolyn Leckie, MSP, Kenneth Macintosh, MSP, Eleanor Scott, MSP, James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP, Mark Russell, MSP, Andrew Welsh, MSP, Caroline Lucas, MEP, Roy Perry, MEP,
in future responses will be posted as well.
letters received from Govt ministers
letters to industry
letters from industry
letters to press