Mobile phone masts refused amid protests over locations
FOUR out of seven mobile phone masts to cover 'blind spot' areas in Torbay have been refused planning permission.
Torbay Council's development control committee was considering the applications by mobile phone company Vodaphone for slimline masts, to be disguised as telegraph poles or lamp standards, and equipment cabinet stations, to fill in areas of poor 3G signal reception.
The company wanted masts between 10 and 15 metres high at Herbert Road, Hawkins Road, St Vincent's Road, Perinville Road, Grafton Road and Warberry Road in Torquay, and Lammas Lane in Paignton.
Planner Mike Smith said the structures would be mono-pole masts rather than lattice structures as they were designed to give line of sight cover for small areas of just a few roads.
He said: "The company has had complaints about inadequate coverage and its contract obliges it to fill in the gaps."
There were public protests about Herbert Road, Hawkins Avenue and Perinville Road, and each was refused.
Vaughan Meuis, objecting to the mast for Herbert Road, Cockington, a conservation area, said: "It would introduce an angular and alien structure to an area of period houses and open space."
Councillors voted the plan down to protect the conservation area and trees.
Mr Meuis said: "There are a number of other sites, possibly higher up where they could get better coverage."
There was also an objection to Hawkins Road from Allan Macfadyn, who said: "A galvanised pole would be five times higher than the existing bus stop, is a completely unnecessary eyesore and would set a dangerous precedent."
The plan was refused because of its impact on an amenity area.
Torre primary headteacher Nicky Bridgewater spoke against the plan for a mast in Perinville Road.
She said her school was about 100 metres from the site and it was impossible to know what risks there could be in the future especially for the youngest children.
She said she feared parents would vote with their feet and take their children away from the school and added: "I can see a future where we are known as 'that school by the mast'."
The mast was refused planning permission for siting and design.
Mrs Bridgewater said: "I am delighted. They have safeguarded the children's future."
There were no public representations regarding masts at Grafton Road, Lower Warberry Road, and Lammas Lane and the sites were approved unanimously.
12 Comments
View all
by Lucy, Torquay
Wednesday, November 26 2008, 12:49PM
“Pete may well be unaware of the risks involved in a mobile phone mast in his back garden. I did not critisise him, maybe I enlightened him?
Smoking, Drinking, Obesity etc are all personal choices. However people would not have a choice about avoiding the risks if a mast was sited near where they live/work. This is hardly being in denial, simply exercising the right to choose. What are statistics if not an information tool to keep people informed?”
by Mathew, Torquay
Wednesday, November 26 2008, 7:54AM
“Yes, very well Luccyy, although interestingly you criticise Pete for wanting a phone mast in his garden.
If people put as much effort into campaigning against things known to increase the hazards of getting cancer as they do about phone masts then maybe we would start to see a reduction in cancer cases, i.e. smoking, stress, depression, lazyness, medication, alcohol, etc. etc. etc.
But I suppose when people like you live in denial then nothing will get done.”
by Lucy, Torquay
Tuesday, November 25 2008, 2:41PM
“Matthew. This is a comment facility. The study I mentioned exists so I am not talking out of anywhere, merely stating a fact. You are welcome to disagree but the fact that you do so in a rude unnecessary manner suggests that you are not employed in a professional capacity. Perhaps you just count the statistics, or maybe clean the offices? Leave the thinking to the qualified people, and try to mind your manners.”
by Mathew, Torquay
Tuesday, November 25 2008, 12:35PM
“Thank you Luuccy, interestingly there is no discussion part. Also of interest is in the conclusions - "This is necessary because this
study has shown that it is no longer safely possible to
assume that there is no causal link between radio
frequency transmissions and increased cancer rates.", i.e. - not to say it exists, but it might or it might not. I'd say your talking out of your ar*e.
And the SAKK is responsible to the Swiss Government, Swiss Medic and Oncosuisse - so to say "being paid to disagree", further backs up the fact that garbage pours out of your mouth.”
by Lucy, Torquay
Tuesday, November 25 2008, 12:00PM
“Well Matthew, you clearly are not up to date with the study encouraged by the German Federal Agency for Radiation Protection by Eger, Hagen, Lucas, Vogel & Voit, which examined whether people living within 400 metres of a mobile phone mast were more at risk of developing cancer than those who lived further away.
Case histories of 1,000 patients between 1994 and 2004 were evaluated for the study.
Newly diagnosed cancers were significantly higher among those who had lived for 10 years within 400 metres of the mast, in operation since 1993, compared with those living further away.
People living within 400 metres of the mast in Naila had three times the risk of developing cancer than those living further away. This seems to be an undeniable clustering of cancer cases.Powerwatch has been calling for a British register for some years. Perhaps it is time the government put its money where its mouth is. You are obviously paid to disagree!”