London SE1 community website

Mobile Masts

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2
Current: 2 of 2
ADT
Monday 18 July 2011 2.16pm
orione wrote:
And the link between electromagnetic fields exposure and children brains is quite established.

Well established by who? NIMBYs or science? Not by the WHO it seems. (In relation to cell phones.)
jlm
Monday 18 July 2011 2.57pm
We can debate the health concerns for years...just as with cigarettes.

However, that is NOT the issue here. Nobody can debate that a council allowing erections of major masts without consulting local residents is not acting in the best interest of the constituents. I would equally object to a large monument being erected in a community without consultation. I agree that this appears to be corruption....no need, no consultation, cash benefit for freeholders & possibly a backhander for southwark planning or the planning inspectorate? If not corruption then gross negligence. Either way a review needs to take place.

I would like to hear others thoughts on the issue at hand, especially the residents of tangerine house.
Monday 18 July 2011 3.28pm
Anything to do with Southwark Council Planning Department seems to be highly controversial these days...and I too have suggested that they are incapable of being unbiased (and possibly corrupt but got told off for that!).

We need phone masts as we want to use mobile phones so the way they are placed must be as open possible, and all planning decisions made should be completely transparent and open to scrutiny.
Monday 18 July 2011 3.32pm
Highlights:[u][/u]

1. Failure to consult

1.1 By the Applicant

1.1.1 Montague Close

The mobile base station application states that the residents and businesses in Montague Close were consulted with by the applicant. I have contacted all of them. They were not.

1.1.2 Guy's Hospital

The mobile base station application states that Guy's Hospital Staff Creche was consulted with. I submitted a Freedom of Information Request, and Guy's Hospital. They were not.

1.2 Southwark Planning

Southwark Planning Website states that the residents and businesses on Montague Close were consulted with, not once, but twice. I have contacted all of them. With the exception of 4 people, they were not. That is over 90 letters that Southwark Planning is claiming were "lost in the Post".

2. Failure to hold to account

I flagged the failure to consult and numerous omissions in the applications with the following list of people on 22 June 2011:

Annie Shepherd, CEO Southwark Council
Peter John, Leader of Southwark Council
Simon Hughes, MP Southwark and Old Bermondsey
David Noakes, Ward Councilor
David Littleton, Southwark Environmental Health
David Musgrave, Planning Inspectorate

To date, no one has responded, other than Peter John who referred the matter back to Southwark Planning.

I have been inundated by other Southwark Residents who also complain of masts being erected without any form of consultation.

3. Health

3.1 Health concern is a planning issue

The four people who received notification of the appliction from Southwark were told to raise any health concerns that they may have with their Councillor. Logically, why was this instruction included if health was not a legitimate concern for consultees to have?

3.2 Health concern is well founded

The WHO was referring to EMF radiation as a whole. The immediate context of their report was mobile phones, but the same radiation is emitted by base stations.

Whether you think it is a risk or not, dwell on this:

i) The applicant has obtained planning permission using an application riddled with untruths and without consultation of the people in the immediate vicinity.

ii) Whispers are that Lloyd's of London underwriters are not covering EMF risks. If you are of a financial bent, recall that the cost of CDS protection on Bank debt spiked long before rating agencies downgraded them. Bottom line, the people who would pick up the tab for any litigation flowing from EMF claims are avoiding it and not waiting for "more scientific data".

This issue undermines the credibility of the planning system as a whole; the LPA and the PI respectively; and, those in positions of authority who do nothing, individually.

Nick Grenside, Borough Market Borders
Monday 18 July 2011 8.55pm
POSTSCRIPT

Is there really a need for a mast?

I am waiting to hear from OFCOM as to whether the justification presented in the application holds any water. There is no actual need, nor any shortage of capacity in the area. It appears to be merely a land grab.

If any of this is alarming to you, take some time and check out Southwark Planning's website for details of the application process. Alternatively, drop me a line at www.BoroughMarketBorders and I can lend you my print outs of the whole online file. Perhaps you will find yourself as someone else who was "consulted" as well?

http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeNeighbours&TheSystemkey=9534567
Pages:  Previous1 2
Current: 2 of 2

To post a message, please log in or register..
February at a glance
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions