Concerns raised over proposed phone mast near school (From Richmond and Twickenham Times)

I agree with Zac Goldsmith that the citing of this mast in Lonsdale Road, Barnes, is in such an unsuitable position that it does not make sense, and I am grateful to him for raising the matter, especially during the holiday period when many are away and unaware of what is happening until a decision is made in their absence.

However, we have all been faced with this 'masts' issue before in the borough and the rule has been that the planning committee could not consider the issue of whether such masts endanger health or not as being 'irrelevant'.

I think it is a 'relevant' consideration based on international findings.

Therefore, for those planning committee councillors who have not made any form of comment so far on the suitability or otherwise of these masts (so they don't have what officials have termed a 'prejudicial interest'), I wonder whether it is time to change the rules and consider medical evidence?

I feel it is relevant to discuss whether a mast placed next to a school, a hospital, or a child's bedroom for that matter, could have health implications as I believe there is a possible case to answer...yet councillors cannot take this into account.

Bernadette Sheehan will not, of course, answer this point as she is an official and will only state at the planning committee that councillors cannot take medical concerns into account.

I understand that the aim of the new coalition government is to give back more to local communities- surely we could start here with masts and the health issue which concern so many parents?

Phillip Taylor

After I don't know how many years of research, no-one has demonstrated a link between mobile phone masts and health issues.

if there were worthwhile international findings on this, the project wouldn't be going ahead in the first place: Britain is peppered with mobile masts, and no-one's managed to make any connection between them and health issues.

Is the planning board an appropriate body to 'consider health issues'? No, not really: if there are health issues, the project shouldn't have got there in the first place. In fact, all we'd end up with is ill-informed nimbyism and quackery.

But what troubles me most, is why masts Mr. Taylor considers masts at particular locations (like a child's bedroom) matter, with the implication that other locations (police stations? Pizza Express?) don't ...

This is nimbyism. Luc - You are right, there have been many INDEPENDENT studies, and none have identified a link between masts and health issues. Holding a phone to your head for a prolonged time MAY have health issues, but not the masts. Also, loads of people have wireless internet these days in their own home. If they are that concerned, why do they do that?
The same people that complain about the mast will the same same that complain about poor mobile signals, espically when they are trying to contact their little darlings on (drum roll)... their mobile phones. If it is "appearance" I can understand to a point, but using totally unproved, scare mongering health issues to show that an MP is in touch with his community - give me a break.

MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR PLANNING COINSENTS

Lucullus and Bandit make fair points about the issue of health and masts. I do agree that there is inconclusive evidence about whether health is impaired if masts are placed nearby. That is not my point, though.

However, my contention is that the planning committee should not be told it cannot take the worries of parents into account, or even be aware of them- this is an unrealistic approach. It is just an example of an overbearing attitude by those in authority telling elected members what to do all the time.

The way round it is to say that the masts are incompatible with the local area and then come up with some reasoned arguments to dismiss an application with good, strong grounds.

Of course, when an application goes on appeal, the residents lose often because those in authority who grant the appeal don't live here and don't have to see it!

In essence, I feel there should be much more flexibility for planning committee members, irrespective of inherent nimbyism which will always be present. Surely what we want is a proportionate, balanced view?

Phillip Taylor

Phillip - I don't disagree. However, the concerns must be legitimate and objective but not hysterical, which I think this would be. I have objected to a few planning applications myself over the years, but within the guidelines. Some have been kicked out, others haven't
My problem (being very cynical), is that over the years, I've found that the people who are most vocal in their objections tend to be the first people to make use of the facilities. Phone masts are classic for this and to be fair most are unobtrusive, being located on the top of buildings etc.

Irrespective of the reserach findings, why dont we have it in soe other place, and not near the school.
<a href="http://www.wos
b.com/">James</a>

pt - why shouldn't it be near the school? In fact, why not put it on a the school roof? Would bring income for the school. masts go on office blocks, etc.
Phone companies don't just stick a pin in a map. They do it based on a number of factors and a lot of planning goes into commissioning one.