- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / Legal / Councils can't reject health-related objections to masts!
Author Message
Agnes
# Posted: 10 May 2009 01:20
Reply 


If you've been told you can't object on health grounds, your council have broken the law!.

Deputy Prime Minister Demolishes Government Directive
ICNIRP Certification is NOT Enough

Yasmin Skelt -v- The First Secretary of State and Three Bridges District Council and Orange PCS Limited

P.S. This PS has been added after the text below it. But it has been put first as it holds the essential message of the events described below - namely, that a Government directive on phone mast planning applications has been effectively overturned by the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, the Rt. Hon. John Prescott.

Government Planning Policy Guidance on masts, PPG8 (Para 98) states: "... it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. ... In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them". But a Planning Inspector who by all accounts followed that advice to the letter failed in his statutory duty - according to the Deputy Prime Minister.

An official Government Planning Guideline that is at variance with the expressed view of the Deputy Prime Minister (and final arbiter of planning issues in the UK) has no place in the planning process and should be withdrawn immediately. Until then the self-contradictory stance of the Government on this issue is untenable, making a mockery of the Democratic Process in respect of mobile phone masts.

Now read on ...

On 26 September 2003 a landmark victory was achieved for those campaigning for the British public to have a say in the safety of their own living environment and that of their families. A High Court Judge signed a Consent Order that finalised the quashing of a Planning Inspectorate appeal decision. The decision, to allow an Orange mobile phone mast to be erected in Grove Way, Chorleywood, was over-turned on the basis of the Inspector's "failure to adequately consider the weight to be given to the health concerns of the claimant in his decision letter". The First Secretary of State offered to concede the case and to pay reasonable costs.

The case was submitted under S288 of a challenge to an Inspector's decision based on the sole ground that as there was an ICNIRP certificate the inspector did not need to look at health further. The Treasury Solicitor, instead of going forward or even submitting any defence, has negotiated a settlement agreeing that a consent order be granted for the reason quoted above.

The Government's Planning Policy Guidance note 8 says that, where an ICNIRP Certificate exists for a proposed mast, there is no need for a Local Planning Authority to consider health issues or concerns any further. This has led to the virtual dismissal, by Planning Inspectors and therefore by LPAs, of objections on health grounds to mast applications (since all of them hold an ICNIRP certificate). Over the past year or so, however, there has been an increasing tide of evidence that so-called 'non-thermal' effects from masts are potentially harmful to people's health – and ICNIRP certification only relates to thermal effects – i.e. the microwave heating effect of mast radiation. In other words, there is a serious potential health risk recognised by many eminent scientists that is in no way covered by ICNIRP certification – and up till now it has been taboo to mention it in planning circles, thanks to PPG8.

Not any more. This Decision makes it very clear that slavish adherence to PPG8, unquestioning reliance on ICNIRP certification, is not enough. It may well be that the Government stepped in and conceded this case to forestall an otherwise inevitable High Court Ruling that would have then gone down as Case Law, to be cited in other similar situations. No matter. The point is clearly made, the cat is well and truly out of the bag.

An MM02 Airwave spokesman is quoted earlier this year as saying (with some rancour) "There is a lot of information on the Internet". He's right, there is. There is also an increasing wealth of information coming out through the media – newspapers, TV, radio – and none of it gives any cause for public confidence regarding phone mast safety. The behaviour of some of the phone mast operators (notably Airwave) is also giving rise to increasing public concern. Is it any wonder that people fear for their own health and that of their children? That fear alone is a Material Planning Consideration, it cannot be denied. It unquestionably affects people's wellbeing and quality of life (and can therefore legitimately be included in any objection to a planning application). This is of itself a substantive planning issue, quite apart from the actual health hazard posed by a mast – at the very least one could say without fear of contradiction that there is now 'reasonable doubt' as to phone mast safety. The head-in-the-sand approach is no longer tenable (though our own 'protection' body, the NRPB, still advocate this ostrich posture – see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3157676.stm ).

The law requires that Government guidelines be interpreted in the light of prior legislation. In the case of PPG8 this includes the Human Rights Act. In the words of previous High Court rulings, such guidelines must not be allowed to "fetter the decision-maker's discretion" in the planning process. This latest Ruling makes it crystal clear how that principle should operate in practice.

PPG8 is guidance. It is no longer (and should never have been) 'carte blanche' for masts to go up anywhere and everywhere with a total disregard for legitimate public health concerns. Yasmin Skelt's victory is a victory for us all, and a victory for commonsense and democracy.

See also: http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/

Check "Letters" "Phone Masts" and "ICNIRP"

INFO CHECKED WITH A SOLICITOR TODAY 7.5.09 AND STILL VALID!
http://mast-victims.org/index.php?content=news&action=view&type=newsitem&id=4017

Source: Mast Sanity, Yasmin Skelt, 08 May 2009

Meer
# Posted: 21 May 2009 19:45
Reply 


Does anyone on this site have a copy of an objection letter to send to the council. We have a mast already up and they are now looking for retention!

Please advise. Thanks.

Agnes
# Posted: 22 May 2009 00:11
Reply 


Dear Meer
I will see if I can get you a letter for objection to a existing mast that has given positive results and post it here in Forum.

I will keep you posted.
Agnes
mast-victims.org

Agnes
# Posted: 23 May 2009 01:14
Reply 


Meer.
Below here is a link to Planning Sanity´s Mast objection and info page.
There are a number of templates to objection letters there, both for new and existing masts.
http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/forums/masts/telemast.htm#vb

This is all I could find on different Mast-sites here in the UK, but I´ll keep looking, and trust you will let me know if there is something there that you can use, or not.
For now best regards.
Agnes

Agnes
# Posted: 23 May 2009 01:19
Reply 


Meer.
There has also been a discussion with advice here in Forum.
Link is:
http://www.mast-victims.org/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=2&topic=520
I hope you can make use of some of this.
Best regards.
Agnes

Agnes
# Posted: 12 Jun 2009 00:14
Reply 


UK Government has not yet noticed that PPG8 has been overturned.

PPG8, the UK mobile-phone mast planning guidelines stating that ICNIRP compliance voids all health concerns, have been overturned in Court - but the UK Government just hasn't noticed yet.

This is painfully obvious in a Government response to a petition against the notorious Kingswingford mobile-phone mast.
(read all at link)
http://mast-victims.org/index.php?content=news&action=view&type=newsitem&id=4095

The petition goes:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to permanently remove the base-station on High Acres Residential Estate Kingswinford which encroaches on Public Open Space where children play & residents walk their dogs daily & is the highest radiation level recorded so far this year by Ofcom even though it is within the ICNIRP guideline limit for this Country."

Details of Petition:

"Disused water tower in close proximity to residences (20 metres in some cases) encroaches on Public Open Space where children play & residents walk their dogs, devaluation of property, visually intrusive, blot on the landscape, highest radiation level recorded in England so far this year by Ofcom even though within ICNIRP guideline limit for this Country."

And the Government responded today:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page19554

These guys are unbelievable!

Anonymous
# Posted: 18 Feb 2010 17:44
Reply 


Hi Agnes,
I am involved in a similar campaign in the north of England. Can you tell me if there is any further update since 12 June 2009 regarding use of the PPG8 over-ride? Many thanks,

J.

agnes
# Posted: 21 Feb 2010 17:47
Reply 


Hi J.
No, This is the last I have heard about this.
But here is the courtcase that laid the grounds for it.

Yasmin Skelt is one of the Mast-Sanity volunteers, I do not know if she still is, but it might we worth contacting them to see if she is prepared to give a helping hand.
Its worth the try.
Best regards.
Agnes

agnes
# Posted: 21 Feb 2010 17:49
Reply 


Sorry J
I forgot to add the link for the courtcase,
but here it is:
http://www.largeassociates.com/APP-E5330-A-04-1162800.pdf
Best regards.
Agnes

Michelle
# Posted: 7 Apr 2011 17:21
Reply 


I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could forward me a copy of an objection letter for a mobile phone mast. thanking you.

Anonymous
# Posted: 8 Apr 2011 13:12
Reply 


Maybe look here

http://www.mastsanity.org/campaign-information.html

http://www.mastaction.co.uk/Practical-Steps/
http://www.mastaction.co.uk/About-Us/Legal-Info/

ES

Anonymous
# Posted: 21 Oct 2011 22:06
Reply 


Does this apply in Scotland? We are fighting against the erection of a phone mast and need all the help we can get - thanks

Anonymous
# Posted: 22 Oct 2011 17:42
Reply 


I do not know. But you might try looking at the Mast Action website.
http://www.mastaction.co.uk/About-Us/Legal-Info/
Perhaps email them and ask the question?

Tent
# Posted: 22 May 2014 10:22
Reply 


In need of help/advice! Live in essex and have plans for a mobile phone mast AND compound in the field next to our house!!! Don't know what to do,

agnes
# Posted: 23 May 2014 01:35
Reply 


Hi Tent.
First of all, contact your local council planning office, and ask them what is beeing planned.
I have of course no idea of how far the planning has got, but assume it is in the application stages, but anyway, here is more or less what you need to do, and make no mistakes, It is a very big undertaking to fight a Mobile or Wi-Fi mast, all the politicians seem to think it is the New Sliced Bread, will solve All our problems and make us win over the world.

But to get back to the job in hand: They (Council planning) are obliged to give you the planning application, all the rest of the docks/maps etc the mobile company has admitted, number of the application (for online access) progress etc, and please remember to ask When it comes up for planning comitte.
As you are a Near Neighbour, you can ask to have your say at that meeting. (If you get it you´ll only get 5 minutes, so get Very organized about what you want to say.
One thing that might make a point at such a meeting is this: The IARC, a department of the WHO has added Microwave Radiation to its cancer substance list as a "possible cancer causing agent, or a 2b.
Link: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf
Scroll down to page 16, print it out and send to your council planning office.
If the mast gets OK from the council, gets installed and neighbours contract cancer you can hold the council Liable!

Other things you have to do in the meantime: Contact All your neighbours and arouse them to the problem.
Look, Most people want a " Good Reception" for their Wireless whatevers, But No-one, and I REALLY MEAN "NO-ONE" WANTS IT IN THEIR DOORSTEP OR IN THEIR BACK GARDEN, not even the gadget freaks!

So, go and talk to all your neighbours, and get the to object to the planning office about the proposed mast, one word of warning here.
Signature lists, No Matter How Many Signatures Only Count as 1 Voice!
So, what you need is to write an Objection letter, copy it out (With small variations in as many copies as you local area is big, and get people to induvidually sign and send/take the letters to the council planning office and/or post them to them.
If the council planning has a website ther might even be a facility there where you can e-mail your protests through.

Look, I am still assuming that this is still in application stages, if it is not Very different action needs to be taken, so if I am mistaken and planning permission has already be give, get back to me here, or e-mail me at agnes@mast-victims.org and we will have to put together a different plan, which will be a lot more difficult as a Mobile mast once "Rooted" is harder to get rid off than Rat Plague!!
But under any circumstanace: e-mail me, and Post here, as many people here have experience in fighting against a mast
Untill I hear from you again.
Best regards.
Agnes

Anonymous
# Posted: 17 Aug 2015 21:37
Reply 


Hi, My Local Planning dept is considering an application for a replacement telecommunications mast in the area where I live, for a larger mast with additional antennas and dishes, The current mast is already one of three within a 500 m radius of each other (and my property lies in the middle of the three). I have concerns regarding the Health implications but my planning dept wont consider any objections on health grounds due to it having an ICNIRP certificate. Any suggestions as to what I can say in my objections letter about this? I'm not sure if the info above is still valid and i am running out of time to object as I wasnt consulted about the application. Thanks in advance

Anonymous
# Posted: 17 Aug 2015 22:26
Reply 


500 m represents 500metres.

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 17 Aug 2015 23:35
Reply 


Hi, I would seriously consider just moving out and finding another place to live. The existing planning application system is going to be phased out soon anyway, so that even masts above the 15m height threshold will no longer need to go through the charade of submitting to local councils for acceptance.

These installations are done deals from the start. Your best move is to get away from there, if you can.

EG.

agnes
# Posted: 20 Aug 2015 01:56
Reply 


Hi Anonymous.

Any Employer is liable for their employees health, especially if they employ anything concerning cancer danger.

The Unions have a whole chapter dedicated to Cancer causing "Agents" as well, and claim to adhere to the WHO directions, although they do not seem to have included the IARC/WHO chapter as yet .

I cannot see why Councils would go free, so my advice is to print these document out and send to the Council with your objection letter

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

More here:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2811%2970147-4/fulltex t?_eventId=login

And more here: The IARC Monographs list of Carcinogenic agents.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Publications/Review2014-Radiation-Fatiha.pdf

Its worth the try, and I would think they might just think it over again.
The backside of a mast is of course that it takes years to detect cancer and the damage done is UN-Reparable.

But I think it is wort the try anyway, especially if you "HOLD the COUNCIL LIABLE" for Damages!
Best regards.
Agnes

Christingle
# Posted: 12 Mar 2017 13:44
Reply 


Hi there!
There is a proposed mobile phone mast installation a few metres from our house in a residential area. I'm wondering what the latest is regarding this thread given the 2012 review by the govt?

Is the fear of health risks still a legitimate concern?

I'm happy to find your site. Thanks for all the valuable information.
Best regards
Christina

Paddy
# Posted: 21 Nov 2017 23:41
Reply 


Hi there, could anyone please give me an update on the health implications of a telecom mast sited near homes, please?
Our local council are asking for objections for a 45 feet mast yards from our homes.

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 22 Nov 2017 11:48
Reply 


Paddy,

Epidemiological studies have consistently ( 80% ) found increased health effects in people living within a 500m radius of mobile-phone masts. Those effects are mostly neurological (headaches, reduced sleep quality, heart- and circulation problems, cognitive decline etc.) and also some evidence of increased risk of developing cancer.

See: "Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations", Khurana et al. 2010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

There's much more evidence available, but thats a starter.

Agnes
# Posted: 23 Nov 2017 23:50
Reply 


Hi Christingle and Paddy.
Both of you "PLEASE OBJECT" health concerns for humans do NOT count, in the UK, but a fruit fly or a frog can make the council members turn in their sleepless nights, But, Please be leave me, a mobile mast near or next to your home is next to a death sentence. The reason for "Mast-victims" in the first place was a H3G mast (Hutchison 3G , by now changed name to only "Three" in the UK) installed on the roof of the house next door to ours in 2002. We worked from our house, so were there 24/7/365 and had employees.
Well, within 20 minutes of H3G starting up the mast, UNKNOWN to us, we ALL fell really ill, and did not know why, as we did not know the mast had gone operational, within a month of sickness we had to find another place to work, and did, but as we owned the house, which was by now worthless it took us a very long time to sell it so it almost bankrupted us.
Because of the sickness the mast induced on us, we had to find somewhere else to live, so additional cost, to us, but the richest and most powerful man in the world, the owner of "Huchison Wampoa" the Chinese (not a communist I take it as he seems addicted to wealth at Others Be-cost, Mr. Li-Ka Singh.

Well did "HE" turn our lives around? From being totally healthy all our lives, never even catching the flu or a cold, we now had to come to terms with getting anything that went round, and being sick most of the time, but still having to try to support our selves.

So guys, Please HEED my advice, No Matter who it is who wants to Contaminate you with Their Radiation, Object to your council !!!,
and in No Uncertain Terms, Remember it is you and your precious young family you are trying to protect (They (Tele) don´t give a toss here, Only Money Counts) and a new twist is now that local councils "advice the tele companies of a denied application for a mast TO LATE (because of computer errors), Funny I don´t seem to suffer anything like that, and I have a very big activity on my webpage and e-mail.

But the fact is those masts get approved by default because of delay, so PLEASE STAY VIGILANT, and Protest, Protest, and again Protest!
Ours and our children's lives are far to valuable to be sold cheap so that the Telco can enrich themselves at the cost of our lives and health.
So, Please All, get on your Council planning mailing list and Object to their trying to sneak in Masts next door to your home.
Best regards.
Agnes

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.
 

These forums are running on web forum software miniBB™ © 2001-2019