Help & Advice re Planning Notice - 13.8 meter high mobile phone mast

keystone

Homersimpson wrote: »

..........as no hard evidence has yet been produced that a risk exists.

Hysteria whipped up by vested interests doesn't count either!

Cheers

mrs_baggins

As far as I am concerned from a personal point of view I think that if you were within a couple of feet of the top of the mast for a prolonged period of time then this may cause concern. I have a document somewhere which I shall try to find which explains how the effect of distance has an effect on these masts. In my local shopping centre for instance there are about 30 small masts which are needed for the amount of people passing through and the fact that people want to be able to maintain contact within the shop.

arent there also loopholes in the planning system which allows the companies to errecr masts as long as they are under a certain height. Personally I wouldnt have concern for the health issues if one was outside my house but admit they do look unsightly

mrs_baggins

Found the document I had. its the R321 report from the HPA found here
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733833994

basically it shows that for every doubling of distance from the mast the energy quarters in value. It falls off pretty quick and ther main risks would be too the people who work on them

27col

I used the word nimby deliberately. It was not a term of abuse but simply a statement of what appears to be the fact. You want to have the benefits of modern technology but only if they are not sited near you. You bring up the old red herring of health risks (unproven). The fact that you may only use the mobile phone sparingly is irrelevant, the same equipment is required. It's the same with the tree huggers who object to new motorways. They have probably all got to the protest by car, and even if they haven't, all their groceries and other stuff have been delivered by lorry or van.

ic

As stated earlier, the modern masts are fairly inconspicuous now, its really only the cabinet that gives them away at the base. Otherwise they just look like thick lamp posts.

daveyjp

Visual amenity may be your only objection - you need to argue it looks ugly and detracts from the landscape, but the landscape needs to be of very high visual value for this to succeed and not just a pretty view for a few householders.

fybar

Hi - just thought I'd say thanks for the advice and to let you know the outcome. I took your advice and consulted the towns planning strategic documents. These clearly stated that telecom masts should, where possible, be sited on industrial or semi-industrial land rather in preference to residential areas. WE quoted this in the appeal and we won.

Once again thanks.

Tom_Jones

Well done :beer:

I love these people who say 'don't be nimby' if everyone took that attitude, big buisness would ride roughshod over planning and ruin this country more than they do now.

dfarry

Just received a letter myself from my planning authority.... O2/Vodafone want to erect a 12.5 metre high mast 2 metres away from my boundary and just 10 metres away from my house. I guess I must be a nimby... or perhaps just plain selfish because whilst i like the trappings of technology I do not one of these unsightly and towering masts on my doorsteps.

I do also think that the potential for property values to drop as a result is quite feasible... potential buyers will be scared off by the conflicting health advice (why should they bother looking into it..... just find another house without a mast outside). If the plan goes ahead will I get a reduction of council tax?... I doubt it somehow!

We are also very near to some schools/colleges, some of which were approached by O2/Vodafone and declined their proposal for roof mounted masts... I wonder why?

I am going to object, enlist local support and see where it takes us... my gut feeling is that this "erection" will happen whatever.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

I would invest in a chainsaw & some dark clothing