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

Author: Stephanie Jones

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 12:12:09 02/25/07 Sun In reply to: dave 's message, "Re: Template for Phone Mast Letter! Please Read, modify and distribute!" on 05:29:08 02/25/07 Sun Thanks for that, Dave! Hope that people are still suitably fired up and protesting? There were 3 weeks from the 9th Feb (if I recall correctly) to register our disapproval with the council, which makes the deadline for letters to Steve Lewis this Friday the 2nd March 2007. >there is a map showing all the local masts on >brighton-hove.gov.uk/telecoms-map also lists of >planning applications for these ******masts > > >>Hello. >>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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

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

Author: John Craig [Edit]

Date Posted: 12:34:32 02/25/07 Sun www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk has some good information on the location and details of masts. >Thanks for that, Dave! Hope that people are still >suitably fired up and protesting? There were 3 weeks >from the 9th Feb (if I recall correctly) to register >our disapproval with the council, which makes the >deadline for letters to Steve Lewis this Friday the >2nd March 2007. > >>there is a map showing all the local masts on >>brighton-hove.gov.uk/telecoms-map also lists of >>planning applications for these ******masts >> >> >>>Hello. >>>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.