- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / Health / Dont site phone mast near home say city folk promts reaction from mast-victim from same road
Author Message
# Posted: 31 Jul 2006 00:11

Don't site phone mast near home say city folk
CONCERNED residents have spoken out about plans to build a mobile phone mast outside a Worcester care home.
If planning permission is granted, a 15m-high 02 UK Ltd mast, disguised as a telegraph pole, could be situated outside South Hayes Care Home in London Road - an area which lies within the Sidbury and Fort Royal Conservation Area.
Resident Paul Smith said the mast, six shrouded antennas and two equipment cabinets would be a dominating eyesore and destroy the views into the city.
"Most people come down London Road from the motorway, therefore the first thing they would see would be a mobile phone mast and generator boxes all over the place," he said.
He added that noise from cabinets was also a concern, as was the danger of setting a precedent.
"Once one mast is there you can guarantee someone else will want to put one up," said the 50-year-old.
Mr Smith, who suggested 02 shared nearby masts instead, said his efforts to contact the company had been ignored.
A spokesman for the South Hayes Care Home also expressed grave concerns about the application. "The health and safety of residents and staff must always take priority," he said.
"We do not take too kindly to microwaves pulsating around them.
"Also, the attractive view of the Malvern Hills which is currently enjoyed by our residents will be spoiled with this obscene obstruction."
A spokeswoman for 02 said: "These are very low-powered radio transmitters.
"There has been research worldwide for the last 10 years and all this has said there is no evidence of any risk to health from the mobile phone masts.
"We try to place these masts so that they have the least environmental impact possible and ensure that they fit in with other street furniture."
She said that mast sharing was always the first option considered, but was not possible here because a two-metre gap was required between antennas, which would create a large lattice design that would be refused by planners.
She said the cabinets would be steel insulated and should not create noise.
Anyone wanting information about the proposal can email 02 at network.consultation@02.com
The application is expected to go before Worcester City Council's planning committee on Thursday, August 10.

# Posted: 31 Jul 2006 00:15

An open letter to Worcester City Planning Comittee and Worcester News.

Comment to news item in Worcester News 17-07-06
Under heading: “Don’t site phone mast near home”.

The piece quoted residents in and near South Hays care home in London Road, Worcester, airing concerns about a proposed telecommunications mast and its impact on their health and wellbeing.

And they are right to be worried.
They should be scared stiff.
The negative impact of the new generation of mobile telecommunications antennae upon human health is well documented.
But this fact will not help the London Road residents against the mad planners of Worcester, and the spineless councilors populating the puppet theatre, that is Worcester City Council Planning Committee.

I would not be surprised if it is the same crowd as sat there in in 2003, when, then Planning Chief, Peter Yates, and then, Director of Development, Stuart McNidder bullied them into passing the mast antennae on the roof of “The Little Sauce Factory” public house in London Road (P02L0669)

That was inside the Sidbury and Fort Royal Conservation area, but away from the Canal side house developments.

It is situated less that 50 meters (at a low level) from old peoples residences on Fort Royal Hill.
It obstructs the view of the Cathedral with a huge “Football” flag.
It is less than 50 meters from a Grade Π listed building at 57 London Road . (MOA Traffic Light test)
As a matter of fact it is only 28 meters away from the windows of that same building, and the main beam radiates the building 24/365.
And it is less than a 100 meters from a kindergarten.

So at South Hayes Care Home, there are all the same ingredients in 2006 that were of no consequence for protest in 2003.

A 300 signature protest from residents presented to the Mayor of Worcester had no impact what so ever.

My point is that the precedence is already there: Conservation area, Old people residents, listed building.
The Worcester planners do not care!

Actually, I can give pretty accurate figures for the diminution of property value for the properties nearest to the new mast.
Calculate with a loss of at least 25% of value.
This figure is documented for 57 London Road.
So that will probably hold true today as well.

Some people might have to move houses when they or their nearest get violently ill from the radiation.
Unfortunately moving away does not cure the illness incurred.
The harm seems to be for life.

The only thing that has changed is the inevitable Industry “spokeswoman” at the end of each news item about mobile telecommunication masts that gets allowed to, without being asked for the slightest proof, repeat the old slogan: There is no evidence of any risk to health from the mobile phone masts”!
In 2003 that was Chief Planners Peter Yates´ job, ridiculing protesters and their concerns in the Worcester press.
It was recent Chief Planners Paul O’Connor’s job to do the Industry Sales Pitch before the Planning Committee, and Director of Development Stuart McNidder passed the application in an article in Worcester Evening News approximately 1 week before it appeared before the committee.

These things can all be read in back issues of Worcester Evening News, so I am surprised every time I see a mast item, handling of the incident is reported as if it was the first time the Industry wanted to put up a mast against residents wishes.

The Worcester City Planners will make sure applications will get passed.
And the councilors will do nothing!
The residents are no concern of theirs.
PPG8 is their law, even though to the rest of us it is only Government recommendations.

People did lose their health and homes in 2003.
Two businesses got evacuated at London Road in 2003.
Wether the old people on Fort Royal Hill got sicker I do not know.
They probably got prescribed some additional medicine by GP´s ignorant of the mast development.

I will leave you with a quote: (from memory):
An Industry spokeswoman (in the planning permission application to Worcester City)
Quote: “Whatever negative environmental impact the installation (mast) might have is insignificant seen in the light of the importance of the mobile phone network roll-out”

So, I would say it does not look good for the concerned residents.

The Mobile Telecommunications Industry has strong allies:
The Government, State and Local.
Your neighbor who might benefit financially from an installation.

But some people will get sick living near the mast.
The mast is inevitable.

I think about the lady from Warndon with the mesh hat which she has to wear at all times to protect her head against radiation.
And the lady from London Road who lost the skin on her hands due to radiation.
They are insignificant.

The above is an expressed opinion!
Erik Petursson.
Glen Lea. Upper Colwall
Nr. Malvern WR13 6DH

# Posted: 31 Jul 2006 00:16

Links to a few of the organizations who fight against the harmful and insensitive siting of Mobile Communications equipment in residential areas, near schools, hospitals, children’s and old peoples institutions.


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 bulletin board software miniBB™ © 2001-2020