Create a New Forum Owner Login Contribute & Create Your Member account VoyUser Login (see contribute) VoyForums Directory/Categories No-ads: Completely remove ads from your forum VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News Help Desk VoyForums Exchange FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions Search VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

Subject: Paragraph 2 is WRONG!! Sorry. Please change as you see fit!

Author: Stephanie Jones

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 07:37:20 02/24/07 Sat In reply to: Stephanie Jones 's message, "Template for Phone Mast Letter! Please Read, modify and distribute!" on 07:34:06 02/24/07 Sat Paragraph 2 is WRONG!! Sorry. Please change as you see fit! I have been furiously busy and in a bit of a rush this week as you can tell. Let me know any other probs. Thanks! [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Re: Template for Phone Mast Letter! Please Read, modify and distribute!

Author: jackie Williams [Edit]

Date Posted: 00:09:10 02/25/07 Sun Wonderful letter. Thankyou >I'm really sorry there has been a delay inme posting >this this. I have changed the letter to make it >relevant. I didn't want to post my address and phone >number on the site, so if anyone wants to make any >comments, discuss anything, or receive a word document >copy, please get in touch via my e-mail: >wolfyjones@hotmail.com You will need to check what I >have said about the South Downs being a conservation >area, I think it is more likely an area of natural >outstanding beauty, but haven't had time to >check....Also, in point 8, I have been a little hazy >about the exact location of the other masts here. If >anybody can find that out, that would be great! Thanks >for reading. I think this is something that as local >rresidents we should all be taking very seriously! > >STARTS: > >Steve Lewis >Planning Department >Brighton and Hove City Council >Hove Town Hall >Norton Road >Hove >BN3 4AH > >12th February 2007 > > > >Dear Steve Lewis, > >Your Ref: BH2007/00396 >T-Mobile (UK) Ltd. Installation of one 8.5m replica >telegraph pole housing three T-Mobile antennas and >associated equipment cabinets together with ancillary >development proposed for the corner of Saltdean Vale >and Hempstead Road, Saltdean. > >Please accept this letter as the main Objection letter >for all residents who have seen and read it, agree >with all points made, and have signed a separate >letter to confirm this. > > We wish to register our objections to this mast >application for the following reasons: > >1) The proposed site is a gateway to the beautiful >South Downs and on a quiet stretch of residential >road. The prominence of this mast will detract from >this scenic and protected vista, creating an eyesore >and dominating the skyline, which will be noticed by >all who use the road. It will tower above the trees, >which are currently in leaf. However, once these >deciduous trees are bare for the majority of the year, >the monopole will be even more visible and unsightly, >sticking out like a sore thumb. > >We would also like to draw your attention to the fact >that this area of Saltdean Vale/Hempstead Road is just >yards away from the South Downs and the protected >vista/conservation area that that constitutes. As the >proposed location of the monopole is actually on >Saltdean Vale, which leads straight onto a >bridleway/footpath, we would argue that it should be >part of the protected vista anyway as it is clearly >visible from the protected area itself. Saltdean >Vale/Hempstead Road is an area where the view should >be protected into, out of and around and should not be >adversely affected by development. Hempstead Road, >Saltdean Vale, and Lustrells Vale will all be >overshadowed by the mast, it being visible from all >those roads. Saltdean Vale is the main bus route for >visitors to the conserved South Downs way on which the >mast will be located and the mast will be ever more >prominent because of this and always remain an ugly >eyesore in this important location. > >There is also already a lot of street lights and >telegraph poles at this location. Another addition to >this already cluttered scene would further detract >from this scenic vista, spoiling the residential >aspect of the neighbourhood. > >2) The proposed location is also very close to the >brow of the hill of the railway bridge, which may act >to surprise and cause partial visual obstruction to >drivers as they cross the bridge, suddenly seeing the >mast more clearly. Installation and maintenance of the >monopole may cause distraction to drivers as they come >south over this brow towards the traffic lights, at >the crossroads with Cromwell Road. These crossroads >are also a busy crossing point for pedestrians and >therefore could be a source of future accidents. There >is also a pedestrian crossing on The Drive, just north >of the brow of the hill, before Wilbury Avenue, which >has no traffic lights and may be missed by drivers who >have been distracted by work taking place on the >monopole. > >3) There is a primary school (Saltdean Primary School) >only 380 metres away, and many old peoples homes near >by, as this area is populated by many of the more >elderly generation. There are also children who live >and play on the piece of land immediately next to the >proposed site. It is clearly documented that the >skulls of children are thinner than those of adults >and that their immune systems are not fully developed. >It is for this reason that the recent report from Sir >William Stewart for the National Radiological >Protection Board stated that children under the age of >8 should not use mobile phones and children aged 9 to >16 years should use them only in an emergency. > >As you will be aware, there are a large number of >conflicting academic reports on the dangers of >radiation emitted from base stations. With this in >mind I urge you to follow the recommendation of the >Stewart Report, and adopt a precautionary approach >(see Para 1.21 and 6.16 of that report) in deciding >applications for telecommunication base stations. This >approach, as you will be aware, is enshrined within >the national planning policy structure of the UK, as >well as European legislation. > > >The Stewart Report states at Para 1.19: - “We conclude >therefore that it is not possible at present to say >that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below >national guidelines, is totally without potential >adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge >are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach." >You may also be aware that Sir William Stewart >criticised the telecoms industry at a conference on >Childhood Leukaemia (06.09.04) for misinterpreting his >report, picking bits out of context and giving the >impression that Sir William Stewart had proclaimed >emissions from mobile phones and masts as 'safe'. The >Stewart Report recommended that exclusion zones should >be placed around all base stations, and indeed some >countries already have exclusion zones. This >recommendation clearly indicates that there is a >potential for concern in placing masts close to >sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals and >residential areas. > >We understand that current research on this matter is >still ongoing and that in the past it has merely >concentrated on the effects of tissue heating from >microwave emitting antenna. There is, however, a large >body of scientific research that now challenges this >view with regard to other possible symptoms such as >increased cancer risk, sterility, effects on heart >pacemakers, etc. as well as the biological affects >that have only had a limited degree of research, the >results of which all point to potential adverse >effects. >However, even if a rejection of the arguments relating >to the precautionary approach is taken by the planning >council, we would urge you to consider the effect the >size and design this mast will have on the well-being >of the local area, which will contrast with the >residential nature of the locality. PPG8 makes it >clear that a rejection of a planning application is >acceptable for base stations should the council >conclude that it would have an adverse effect on the >amenity of the area. > >We are aware that “health and perceived risk” is a >material planning consideration that is largely >ignored on government directive, but we wish to >register our fears and concerns and ask you to take >them into account. We would also like to make the >comment that "health and perceived risk" as a planning >consideration has only been removed via planning >guidance, which is not the law of the land. >4) As the proposed mast would be visibly prominent >over a wide area it would serve as a constant source >of anxiety to all our residents - particularly parents >of children living in the area and the elderly >residents who are alarmed and confused by the >technology. The Stewart Report said "adverse impacts >on the local environment may adversely impact on the >public's well-being as much as any direct health >effects." >There is a wealth of research into the detrimental >health effects of mobile phone masts and even if you, >the council and the government, do not accept these >warnings, the information is widely available and >believed. Therefore the perceived risks that this mast >may pose will act as a health risk in itself and the >mast being erected in such a prominent position will >act as a constant reminder of this. > >As such, we urge you in accordance with the provisions >of Para 29 of PPG8 and attach considerable weight to >the fear felt by the majority of local residents in >relation to this proposed development. These fears and >concerns are, and will in our submission, affect the >quality of local life, and therefore have a >detrimental effect upon the amenity of the area > >We would also like to draw your attention to the >Brighton and Hove Local Plan, QD23 Telecommunications >apparatus (general), where it states that “Proposals >for telecommunications developments will only be >permitted…if…(b) it can be demonstrated that existing >masts or structures cannot reasonably be used for the >purpose…(e) no unacceptable adverse impact on amenity, >people…in the locality…”and 3.99 “The benefits from >telecommunication to the community and economy are >recognised and welcomed. Care… protect from urban >"visual damage"”. >Also, in the Brighton and Hove Sustainability Strategy >- Local Agenda 21, it states "protect human health and >amenity through safe, clean and pleasant >environments". We do not welcome this mast which will >adversely impact on our health, either through real or >perceived risk, and will have a negative effect on the >local amenity by it’s prominence and industrial >appearance in an otherwise residential neighbourhood. >5) It seems highly likely that our properties will >fall in value and/or become more difficult to sell if >the proposals are implemented, as pointed out in >paragraph 6.45 of the Stewart Report: “Some citizens >feel that the siting of base stations, and >particularly of masts, can result in a loss of amenity >and possibly a reduction in the value of property…” >Being that this mast will be so prominent, and that >masts have become well recognised and so much part of >our visual currency, it is very likely that >prospective buyers will not be able to miss this mast, >which will possibly put many homes into negative >equity. This in turn may affect the council tax >revenues for the area. >Even if this is not the case, the perceived fear of a >loss of value on homes is detrimental to the >residents. This installation would have a negative >impact upon the quality of life of the community as it >reduces the desirability of the area as a safe place >to bring up children, and it will thus have a negative >impact on the local amenity. This mast being so >clearly visible from Saltdean Vale, a busy road, will >act as a constant reminder of these concerns. These >factors, and the fear of the potential dangers posed >by the emissions, collectively form an amenity harm. > >6) The proximity of the mast to residential property >will result in more noise nuisance during the night, >as well as during erection and maintenance, which >sometimes takes place overnight, and continually from >the widely reported “hum” made by base stations. >7) A 3G mast has the potential to destroy, or at the >very least, adversely affect the biodiversity of the >location. Residents in other communities across the UK >have noted the deterioration of vegetation around 3G >and TETRA masts. In addition to this, T-mobile state >that it is important that they keep up with the >current trend for 3G demand. We do not agree that this >is something our local community needs. Many of the >residents here do not use mobile phones, even the >older 2G ones. > >8) In this area, we are currently being targeted by >mobile phone companies who want to position their >masts here. There are already two prominent masts (one >on the land above Greenbank Avenue, Saltdean, clearly >viewed from the local position and others in the >centre of Saltdean and surrounding areas. If this mast >goes ahead, others may follow, we feel that should >this hot spot be left unchecked, we residents could be >overwhelmed by the cumulative effect of the masts. On >mass their appearance will have even more of a >negative effect on the local amenity and the greater >perceived health risk will impact more negatively on >residents’ lives. > >9) We do not intend to use a 3G mobile phone, the main >reason being that there is a question about whether >the technology is safe. The general consensus is that >the newer technologies of 3G and TETRA have not been >researched adequately to see if they are in fact safe. > >10) We are in contact with www.mastsanity.org , a >voluntary organisation with charity status, which >provides free advice and support for all community >members within the UK who have queries or concerns >about the siting or safety of all phone masts. Mast >Sanity has confirmed our fears about 3G masts and >informed us that health survey forms are now being >requested for areas around 3G masts, as well as for >those covered by Airwave TETRA and longer term >existing 2G masts. >Many residents have already requested a signed >affidavit from Marconi/T-mobile, stating that living >within 500 metres of this proposed mast will cause no >ill-health as a direct consequence of it’s output. No >one has received this guarantee, so it is clear that >there is no watertight assurance against ill-health. > >For all of the above reasons we would therefore >request that this mast is not erected within our >community. > >Yours sincerely > > > > > >Stephanie Jenna Jones > >On behalf of Saltdean Vale Area Residents >and >On behalf of all local residents who have signed a >letter of agreement to all points raised in this, the >main objection letter, to the Council, with regards to >this planning application. > >ENDS.