Many thanks everyone for all your
help re the above. Mark McDonald, the Bath campaigner, has
asked for further assistance (please see below email). Any
further comments/assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
John Elliott
P.S. I have urged Mr McDonald to join Mast
Sanity on numerous occasions.
Hi John,
Many thanks for that.
Dr. Bob Matthews told me that Vodafone have fixed bearings of 90, 220
& 330 degrees in order to fit into their cell. However the 220
degree BOGI intersects St. Johns Primary school at 245 meters.
Presumably the school should have had the opportunity to object, which
the St Johns Governors did and were ignored. There is also a severely
epileptic child there and a special needs school 270 meters away but
not directly under the BOGI. To avoid this issue Needham Haddrell
proposed they change the bearings to 130, 250 & 10 degrees. Dr.
Mathews told me this is incorrect, however the council have granted
planning on Haddrell’s bearings. I suspect a change in condition 2 will
make this point worthless and incremental practice has won. I
enclose a PDF of Haddrell’s application. If we can not hit them with
health issues, what is left? Any suggestions would be gratefully
appreciated as I have to brief people who are prepared to write a
complaint letters.
Regards, Mark.
On 24/5/06 15:17, "John Elliott" <John2.Elliott@uwe.ac.uk> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: mastsanity.org
On Behalf Of Mobile phone mast network
Sent: 24 May 2006 15:15
To: Masts@mastsanity.org
Subject: Re: [Masts] Vodaphone Church Mast (Bath)
From Karen Barratt
I'm not sure what is meant by 'this would avoid a
primary school and stay within the Stewart Report.' There is an often
quoted misconception that Stewart prevents masts being sited near
schools and that operators who ignore this are somehow breaking the
rules. Apart from the fact that only the bits of Stewart that were
incorporated into PPG8 are relevant anyway, Stewart only said that the
BOGI should not fall on schools without the agreement of parents,
governors etc. There is no definition of what 'near' means either but
again, you often hear the ops talking about not needing to consult if a
school is more than 200m away. In the course of attending many site
meetings my conclusion is that the ops usually adopt a
'flexible'approach ie whatever measurement allowing the site applied
for to be deemed at a 'safe' distance is the one they quote.
On technical matters the ops also like to give the
impression that by a slight tweak, it is a simple matter to change
alignments to avoid sensitive buildings. I'm not a techie but neither
are planning officers/cllrs. Without independent technical advice the
operators can get away with asserting all sorts of nonsense. They will
say anything they can get away with if it reassures the decision makers
and gets them the permission. Unfortunately whereas I'm quite
happy to say that I don't have the technical expertise to argue, I've
often seen members of telecom sub-cttees nodding sagely, blinded by
science obviously too embarrassed to admit they haven't got a clue.
Still I'm sure it gives people like Dr Rob Matthews a laugh.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mobile phone mast network
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:33 AM
Subject: [Masts] Vodaphone Church Mast (Bath)
Dear All,
I have been assisting some campaigners in
Bath and they have asked me the following question about condition 2 of
the mast planning application:
<"Dear John,
I would be very obliged if you could answer this question or
direct me to the answer.
You may have noticed that Vodafone have applied to planning to have
condition 2 removed from the mast application. Condition is a
requirement of Vodafone to monitor the site for
ELM. It was placed upon them because of concerns in this community. I
need to know has the government regulators fixed the main beam
coordinates for each telecommunication provider. If so what are they. I
was told by Dr. Matthews at Vodafone that his are fixed at 90, 220 and
330 degrees. However Vodafone got planning permission for 130, 250 and
10 degrees in Bathwick because this would avoid a Primary School and
stay within the Stewart Report.
The removal of condition 2 will neatly avoid this issue for Vodafone
and also remove our big argument, which I suspect is the reason why
they have not put the thing up.
Anybody please help,
regards,
Mark Macdonald">
Your comments would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
John Elliott