Newsfeed -
click here (predefined search for phone masts)
BBC News -
click here ((predefined search for phone masts)
July 07 Study fails to find link between exposure to radiowaves and
electrosensitivity.
Document
here.
June 2006 Welsh assembly moves towards removing Permitted Development rights
for masts
Document here.
June 2005 GP loses fight against mast
A local GP faces £30,00 legal costs having lost a case attempting to get a
mast removed. On the face of it, the Local Authority involved must carry some of
the blame as they failed to deliver their decision about the mast in time to the
applicant.
Details here.
May 2005 ECS assists Council in winning Appeal
Faced with an Appeal resulting from a refusal to grant permission for a mast,
Hertsmere Borough Council sought the assistance of ECS Ltd. Working with Stephen
Job Associates, the Council's planning consultants, we argued that the operators
(it was a shared site) had other options available. The Inspector dismissed the
appeal.
Appeal Decision here.
March 2005 - Long running Winchester Case ends
A long-running case has ended with a refusal by Law Lords to allow the case
to be taken further. The case has proved a costly one for the tax payer, picking
up substantial costs from a Public Inquiry and several court hearings. The
aggrieved parties were children and thus qualified for legal aid, further
inflating the bill to the public purse. Several important principles came out of
the proceedings.
January 2005 Leeds Doctor goes to Appeal Court
A Leeds doctor believes that her Human Right may have been infringed by
Council's actions in relation to mast application.
BBC
story here.
Comment. This appears to be yet another case where a Local Authority
has failed to grasp the significance of the planning legislation in respect of
the need to ensure that they have proof refusal decisions are delivered
in time. PPG8 is clear on this particular matter and it is depressing to see
that some Authorities still fail to follow the procedures properly.
January 2005 New "Stewart Report" Issued
The Press Coverage indicates that the report reiterates the advice in the
2000 Stewart Report that children should limit their use of mobile phones.
BBC news story here.
Download complete report here.
December 2004 German Reflex Study shows DNA Damage in Laboratory
A recent
study
carried out in Germany shows damage to human DNA exposed to radio waves at
levels similar to those encountered by users of mobile phones (levels that are
significantly greater than those encountered near to masts). This was a
laboratory study.
"Prof Franz Adlokofer, of the German research group Verum... advised
people to use landlines as a precaution, [but] he warned that the study did not
prove that mobiles caused disease because the research was carried out in
laboratories and did not reflect real life." Telegraph 2004
The study is unpublished (except on the internet) and so has not been subject
to any peer review.
ECS Comment - single studies are not always reliable indicators of
overall trends. This does not mean that they should be dismissed (unless clearly
in error) but does mean that their conclusions should be interpreted with
caution. Our belief is that the Stewart Report conclusions, that the balance of
evidence does not indicate harmful effects, remains valid.
Download full report here.
Story here (Telegraph),
Nature
and here (BBC).
NRPB response to Verum Study.
December 2004 Minister Pledges Better Consultation
Comment. Since people feel disempowered by the planning process,
consultation can be problematic. People want mobile phones but don't want masts
(or at least they don't want them near to where they live). If consultation is
to be effective it will need to provide a platform for informed debate.
Unfortunately, this is seldom what happens.
News story here.
December 2004 Court of Appeal rules on Winchester Case
This case concerned the use of compulsory purchase powers by mobile phone
companies. The decision was that companies are not obliged to use these powers
if they do not wish to do so. As such the ruling was unexceptional. An appeal to
the House of Lords may be pursued.
Story here.
November 2004 ECS helps with BBC documentary
Details here.
November 2004 Council found Guilty of Maladministration
Story here.
Comment: it is disappointing to find that some Councils continue to have
inadequate procedures in place to deal with this sort of application. The rules
are clear and there really is no excuse for missing the deadline. ECS lectures
on this subject and sadly sometimes our advice in the respect falls on deaf
ears.
November 2004 Harrogate and Winchester
Two High Court hearings are scheduled this month which could have interesting
consequences. In the Harrogate Case, applications for masts close to schools
will be considered. In the Winchester Case the use of Code powers by mobile
phone operators for compulsory purchase will be considered.
Harrogate - ruling indicates that provided the relevant
exposure guidelines are met, health and safety matters need not be considered
further in the planning process. This is entirely consistent with PPG8.
Perception of risk is only to be given significant weight in "exceptional
circumstances" and that test was not met in this case.
News report from
the Scotsman.
Our comment - the ruling is consistent with PPG8, large numbers of Planning
Inspector's decisions and pervious High Court hearings (esp. regarding
perception). The ruling is therefore not surprising.
Winchester - this is a long-running case which has cost the
residents of Winchester and tax payers generally, large sums of money as it has
already resulted in a substantial costs award against the Local Authority and,
our understanding is that the High Court actions have been funded by Legal Aid
as they have been brought by children. One could either view this as a
scandalous waste of public money or as good use of public funds to support
actions by small numbers of individuals against very wealthy companies. You
choose.
The key point here is will the ruling be that mobile phone companies should
make use of their compulsory purchase powers to acquire locations for base
stations that are preferred by the local community. Our understanding is that
such powers have never been used by the mobile phone companies and that the
powers are more relevant for the siting of telegraph poles. This area has
certainly been probed before but this judgment may well clarify the use of these
powers. Presumably the residents will be using Phillips ruling (October 2003) in
their support.
Update 15 November - Judges have deferred making a decision.
November 2004 - ECS provides advice to
BBC documentary
Richard Newstead of ECS Limited assisted the BBC in making a documentary
about mobile phone masts. The documentary alledged that mobile phone companies
and their agents sometimes seek to side-step planning legislation to save time
and money.
Report here.
October 2004 - BBC reports that Vodafone has been told to move temporary
mast by Council
Report here.
Previous report here.
September 2004 - Health Benefits from Radiowaves Dismissed by NRPB
Report here
September 2004 - CPRE Worried about masts in the countryside
Report here
August 2004 - NRPB Report on Exposure Near Microcells
Report here.
August 2004 Cost Award against Gateshead Council
BBC Report
here.
July 2004 I'm on the Plane
BBC Report on
mobile phone use on aircraft.
July 2004 All Party Mobile Group reports on planning issues for mobile phone
masts
The report gives 19 recommendations which we would agree with.
Details here.
July 2004 Judge criticises Airwave
Source
However [Airwave] before a second judge claimed that the mast was an
essential component of its telecommunications system which would ultimately
provide secure communication links between police forces and other emergency
services across the country. It asserted that negotiations on building a
replacement mast had taken longer than expected and an alternative site had not
been secured.
In the light of this evidence, the Judge agreed to postpone the date for the
mast’s dismantling. However he stated that the police had been placed in an
“anomalous and awkward” position in deprecating the breach of planning control
while having to support the company in order to ensure that the new system
became operationally effective on time.
The judge concluded that it was “profoundly unsatisfactory” that the police
authority had to support an application by a commercially motivated company to
postpone the injunction against a deliberate breach of planning control. He
reluctantly agreed to extend the period for complying with the injunction until
the end of July and stated that he expected the company to devote all its
efforts to ensuring that the mast was removed before that date.
This is an anomaly that we have raised several times before. The Police are
contractually obliged to support a company that is, in essence, flouting the Law
in these matters.
July 2004 BMA calls for mobile phones to be allowed in hospitals
Report here.
June 2004 BMA Report on mobile phones and health
Report here.
June 2004 Planning Appeal in Harrogate - masts and health issues
News report here. APP/E2734/A/03/1128255. July 2004 update - Harrogate
Borough Council has advised us the the High Court has quashed the decision and
ruled that the Secretary of State should "reconsider" his decision.
(CO/2264/2004). Thank you to Mike Parkes of HBC for this information.
June 2004 NRPB releases latest independent survey results
These results show that exposure levels from living near to masts are well
within the internationally accepted guideline levels.
Read report here.
May 2004 Private Members Bill defeated
Richard Springs Bill relating to mast controls was defeated on the House of
commons.
BBC Report
here.
April 2004 Jim Dowd MP seeks to make Code of
Practice legally enforceable.
Hansard
Report here.
30 April 2004 - NRPB Review of Scientific
Evidence for Limiting Exposure to Radiowaves
Link here
April 2004 - Winchester City Council face costs
of over £150,000
Download appeal decision here. Note that this decision is the subject of a
High Court case to be heard in November 2004.
Comment. Councils refusing masts on health grounds run a significant risk of
cost awards against them if decisions are appealed. The test is the a Council
must present new and compelling evidence to the Planning Inspector. In Inquiries
the same few health "experts" are always keen to assist Councils and residents
to lose the battle.
31 March 2004 - NRPB Adopts ICNIRP Guidelines
http://www.nrpb.org/press/press_releases/2004/press_release_5_04.htm
5 March 2004 - COST 281 Report
Latest
COST report on health here.
28 January 2004- Parliamentary Debate on Masts
Access the debate here.
January 2004
New agreement about masts in National Parks.
January 2004 - Network Rail Update
This useful information has been provided by Network Rail to one Local
Authority (dated December 2003):
> The situation with the
GSM-R project is as follows. The project has
> been reviewed over the
last number of months by the SRA because of the
> need to control capital
expenditure. This review is now complete and I
> understand a new project
plan will be available in January. The
> project will go forward
on a more organic basis, by building logical
> communications rings in
those areas which most require it (because of
> the state of the current
radio system for example). The rate of
> implementation has slowed
down in any event, with the project
> certainly not being
complete until toward the end of this decade.
>
> At the same time, the
ODPM has instigated a consultation exercise over
> proposed changes to the
General Permitted Development Order. The
> proposed changes, amongst
others, are that Network Rail permitted
> development rights in
respect of communications masts in areas with
> certain landscape
designations (such as National Parks) should be
> restricted to 15
> (fifteeen) meters in
height. We have decided that we should await the
> outcome of this
consultation in any event where installation in such areas
> was proposed.
>
> Given that the situation
remains somewhat open ended, I propose that I
> keep you up to date with
developments in the New Year. Of course, I am
> available to answer any
questions in the mean time.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Madelène Klaasen-Bos
> Head of Communications,
GSM-R
> Network Rail
January 2004 - Update to Stewart Report published.
See our links page.
December 2003 - New Book Published ***RECOMMENDED READING***
New book published on masts and the public perception of risks.
Details here.
This book is recommended reading for anyone who wants to understand how the
public perception of risk has been shaped in respect of mobile phone masts.
Read BMJ
review here.
December 2003
An interesting programme on Perception of Risk with special regard to mobile
phone masts was on Analysis on BBC Radio 4. A transcript
is
available here.
Three Loses Important Case - October 2003
Hutchison Three loses important High Court case in Hampshire.
Press report here. Note that Press Reports and not always a reliable source
of information! This case may have implications on the rigour required in
searching for alternative sites.
October 2003
Court overturns Orange Chorley wood Appeal Decision
An Inspector's decision to uphold a refusal to grant permission for a mast
has been overturned by the High Court. The decision was overturned because the
Inspector failed to apportion weight properly to health concerns despite the
existence of an ICNIRP Certificate.
Our analysis is that this clarifies the need to properly consider health
concerns and to attach some explicit weight to them - it does not seem to change
the fact that where ICNIRP compliance is demonstrated, the weight carried by
health concerns is light.
Decision APP/P1940/A/02/1105668 16 April 2003
Court Claim CO/2466/2003 26 September 2003
May 2003 - NRPB invites public comment on exposure levels
http://www.nrpb.org/publications/consultation_documents/emf_consultation_document.htm
Tourist Village may be powered by microwave radiation
http://www.grandbassin.net/documents/iaf96/eng_gbt_iaf96.htm
If it proceeds, this interesting project will exceed the ICNIRP guidelines
for public exposure inside the beam by a significant margin
May 2003 - CAA Study Shows Mobile Phones can threaten safety of aircraft
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF
http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/default.asp?page=1347
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/750893.stm
Read story on
BBC Web Site here.
Comment from ECS
Failure to issue a decision on time not an unusual occurrence. Our
experience indicates that it has happened to over 50% of all Local
Authorities at least once. The problem is usually one of the
following:
All of these problems are avoidable with a bit of planning.
However, this ruling will certainly serve to focus attention on
delivering timely decisions.
For the mobile industry, I would expect that this ruling is
probably not good news. Deemed consents gained by failure in the Local
Authorities processing of applications are never popular with local
residents and cause lots of bad publicity for both the Authority
concerned and the operator. The industry has thus far taken a firm
line in such cases and has usually (perhaps always?) been unwilling to
back down from having a deemed consent. This decision will probably
mean more refusals overall as some will be delivered more quickly and,
where time is pressing, a refusal is often considered the "safest"
choice by Planning Committees. The award also highlights a realised
drop in property values, something that the mobile industry is
unlikely to be keen to see.
It will be interesting to see what happens as a result of this
ruling.
May 2003 - Railway Use of PD Rights Scrutinised
Commons Hansard
(14 May 2003)
Telecommunications Masts
(Railways)
Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle): I
beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the
permitted development rights of railway or light railway
undertakings in respect of .....
12.32 pm
Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle):
I beg to move,
That leave be given
to bring in a Bill to restrict the permitted development rights of
railway or light railway undertakings in respect of telecommunications
masts.
The restriction would
have the effect of requiring rail undertakings, including Network
Rail, to seek full planning permission before erecting masts more than
15 m high, in common with other companies erecting masts. That would
enable proper democratic scrutiny and give time for local people to
engage in the process.
The masts are
required to relay data and voice communications. The work includes the
installation of a new signalling system known as the train control
system and will allow the introduction of automatic train
protection—the highest level of rail safety available. Clearly, I do
not argue with that, but I do argue that a failure to require full
planning permission means that Network Rail can site masts of any
height anywhere it likes on rail land, with consequent loss of public
confidence and, indeed, public outrage when inappropriate siting leads
to loss of visual amenity and loss in the value of homes.
Network Rail
currently engages in a notification process for masts higher than 15 m
and, I understand, up to 33 m. The consultation that takes place is
very limited; even precise locations are made available to the public
only on application to the appropriate body—that is, if they can find
out in the available time which body that is.
In Cheadle, the first
mast, at Ravenoak road in Cheadle Hulme, was notified to residents on
16 December 2002—not
a good time for most families. At least one of the most affected
families was missed out. The notification was headed "West Coast
Modernisation, Notice of Forthcoming Works—Carr Wood Park".
Carr Wood park is
some half a mile away. It turns out that it had been the preferred
location, as it is screened by trees. In fact, the mast has been put
next to a railway bridge where the arrangement of housing is such that
about 100 homes have a direct view of the 20 m height of the towering
monstrosity. The worst-affected residents' home is 16 m from the base
of the 20 m high mast, with no screening whatsoever. That is roughly
65 ft of mast—twice the height of an ordinary house. Network Rail
could not have chosen a worse site.
In another case in my
constituency, at Smithy Green, the notification letters were delivered
to households only after work had begun. It was a mistake, but that is
in no sense consultation. Under the law as it stands, however, Network
Rail does not have to notify residents at all, so mistakes do not
count. I now understand that Network Rail has plans for 33 m high
masts in national parks and open countryside, and plans to bring in
more than 5,000 in total.
I have been in
communication with Network Rail, the local authority and the
Department of Transport, and I have written to the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A very unsatisfactory situation
emerges. Network Rail claims that its permitted development rights
when notifying the local planning authority come from part 11 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport, the right hon. Member
for Warley (Mr. Spellar), indicated in a reply to me that part 17 of
the order was the relevant part. A more recent letter from him said
that either might be relevant. I quote:
"Part 17 is used for
some works, but part 11 is the more important for those relating to
track, bridges and stations."
My Bill would amend
both parts 11 and 17 for the avoidance of doubt.
Guidelines about
masts and their erection published by the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs make it clear that visual amenity is to be the
major factor in determining the position of masts. When the right hon.
Member for
Greenwich and
Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) was a planning Minister at that Department,
he said:
"It is vital that the
masts which enable the service to be delivered"—
he was talking about
other telecommunications companies—
"are designed and
sited sensitively so that their environmental impact is kept to a
minimum and that local people have a better chance to have their say."
I understand from the
Department for Transport that those guidelines, which apply to every
other mast company, do not apply to Network Rail. That is
extraordinary—all the more so, given that the design of masts that are
being erected makes the structure appropriate for additional
operators. In addition, prior to its demise, Railtrack entered into
contracts with various telecommunications companies to provide them
with sites. Should Network Rail wish to provide sites for other
operators, full planning permission will be necessary. However, the
whole world knows that it would be almost impossible to say no once
the mast has been there for some time.
The Minister of State
has been helpful in suggesting that local authorities can apply for
"the removal of a
particular permitted development right and require an application for
planning permission by submitting to the Secretary of State an order
under Article 4 of the General Permitted Development Order."
However, my local
authority in
Stockport points out
that Network Rail would contest that on a case-by-case basis and that
the local authority would have to demonstrate why the location should
be treated differently from elsewhere. The procedure would prove to be
lengthy and expensive, and is expected to be used only in exceptional
circumstances.
My argument is that
we have a loophole in the law that requires closing. The public
deserve better than this, and at the very least should be enabled to
see that their local elected representatives and the local planning
authority can protect their amenity in the same way as is expected
with all other telecommunications companies.
Question put and
agreed to.
Bill ordered to be
brought in by Mrs. Patsy Calton, Vera Baird, Norman Baker, Tom Brake,
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke, Sue Doughty, Mr. Don Foster, Paul Holmes,
Julie Morgan, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Ann Winterton and Mr. Crispin Blunt.
Mrs. Calton accordingly
presented a Bill to restrict the permitted development rights of
railway or light railway undertakings in respect of telecommunications
mast: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a
Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed [Bill 107].
April 2003 - Imperial College
calls for mobile phone use to be allowed in hospitals
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:V89Ni8SySM0J:www.ic.ac.uk/P4036.htm+imperial+college+mobile+phones&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
