Recycle Page - Kingston Council Liberal Democrats

Mobile Phone Mast Petition Details

Old Malden Liberal Democrats are currently fighting to prevent an application to mount a mobile phone mast outside Malden Manor School Nursery Unit.

The application is for the installation of 6 antennas and 1 microwave dish at 15m height on electricity pylon with ground level equipment cabinet. at Malden Manor Station Car Park, Manor Drive North, New Maiden, Surrey, KT3 SPN. It has been turned down by the council, but has since gone to appeal.

There is a very short time span by which residents have to write and register their objections. The location is on the electricity pylon in the Malden Manor Station Forecourt opposite the school nursery and across the road from the Meldone Flats.

The appeal will be decided on the basis of written representations made by the Council, the Appellant, and interested parties. If you commented on the application your views will be forwarded by me to the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions. If you would like to modify or make additional comments at this stage, you should send 3 copies direct to the Department at the following address:-

The Planning Inspectorate,

Room 3 / 24 Hawk Wing,

Temple Quay House,

2 The Square,

Temple Quay,

Bristol B51 6PN

quoting reference APP/Z5630/A/01/1062978 - Kingston upon Thames

Reply by 22/05/01. The inspectorate require you to Send 3 copies.

You can do two things now.

1. Read this page and then sign the petition to help fight future applications. Click here to sign our petition.

2. Find out how you can write and support the councils decision to turn down the application and so help fight the appeal.

Edward Davey MP with Phil Willis MP and Trudy Dean Leader of Kent County Council Liberal Democrats with other Lib Dem MP supporters, Richard Allan, David Heath and Andrew Stunell at the petition launch outside the House of Commons. Wednesday 25 April 2001.

Edward Davey Mp and Phil Willis MP with other Liberal Democrats launching the petition outside the House of Commons

Planning Minister Nick Raynsford has ignored responses to his own consultation exercise on changes to planning laws on mobile phone masts. He has announced he does not propose to implement the major recommendation of the Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry and the Stewart Panel, both of whom pressed for all new masts and adaptations to existing masts to go through the full planning application procedure. Instead, Mr Raynsford has merely said that the universally unpopular Permitted Development Rights procedures for masts under 15 metres, will in future allow for 'stronger' public consultation requirements over a longer period of time i.e. 56 days.

These changes mean that, though residents will have longer to object, Planning Authorities will still not be obliged to take their objections into account. What is more under the Permitted Development Rights procedure, applications on which Planning Authorities have been unable to make a decision within the time limit, will automatically receive planning consent. This is an open invitation for Mobile Phone operators to stretch out the consultation period to by pass local concerns.

The all party Local Government Association, which represents all Planning Authorities in the country, replied to Nick Raynsford's consultation paper by urging him to require full planning permission for all new applications.

We believe that everyone campaigning on mobile phone masts will regard the Government's proposed changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts as totally unacceptable. A committee of MPs has described the proposals as 'failing to address public concerns about possible risks to health' and says 'it is not surprising that all concerned are thoroughly frustrated with the complexity and arbitrariness of the planning approval system'.

We urge campaigners to join forces and sign up to the petition below. We will present the petition to Government and put pressure on them to support ordinary people all over the country who are suffering the effects of phone masts within feet of their homes and their children's schools.

'We the undersigned call on the Government to implement the recommendation of Sir William Stewart's Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones and require all new mobile phone masts and modifications to existing masts to require full planning consent'

Click here to sign our petition.

Background on Malden Manor Mast Application

Vodaphone have applied to install a mobile phone antenna on the electricity pylon outside Malden Manor Station directly opposite Malden Manor School Nursery Unit. The antenna will also be lower than the roof line of the surrounding residential flats in the area. Many residents have written letters requesting that Kingston Council turns down the application, while others have signed a petition. Councillor Ian McDonald himself urged Kingston Council to turn down the application, which was duly done. Vodaphone are now appealing and so it is important to maintain the pressure to ensure that permission is not granted against the will of the council and local residents.

The appeal process is important. Residents in the area should write as soon as possible (address at top of this page) stating their reasons for the objection. In objecting it is important to state reasons that are likely to be upheld by the person judging the appeal. In stating objections it is therefore important to quote reasons from the Councils Unitary Development Policy - a legal document that states the councils planning policy. The UDP however cannot take into account safety fears. However one can also quote the Stewart Report. While the Stewart Report in itself is not constitute sufficient grounds to turn an application down it can influence the person hearing the appeal. However in hearing the appeal the main document for guidance is the UDP. Hence it is important to quote from both.

Councillor McDonald commented, "It is important that the government starts allowing councils to make decisions for local people. So far there is no conclusive evidence that such masts are safe in the vacinity of anyone, especially young children. Placing them close to nursery schools (where yoing children are still developing) and below the roof line of surrounding flats is not sensible.

The Stewart Report

The report says the balance of evidence to date does not suggest that masts and mobile phone emissions put the health of the UK population at risk, but it goes on to say that exposure to radiofrequency radiation may ‘cause subtle effects on biological functions, including those of the brain’ and though this does not necessarily mean health is affected, ‘it is not possible to to say that exposure to radiofrequency radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects’.

Councillor McDonald (a Chartered Physicist) sates:

"There is evidence to suggest that reaction time is affected by radio frequency radiation. However the reaction time either increases or decreases depending on the research process. Some may try to use this to suggest that one piece of research cancels out another. However what is proved is that the bodies reaction time is affected.

"What is clear is that we need a policy of not putting antenna in places that could influence the development of our youngest and most susceptible section of our society".

The report itself deals with the use of phones and the siting of masts. In the report for example it states that children should be discouraged from using mobile phones. While in referring to the position of masts it states that the beam of greatest intensity should not fall directly on school grounds.

Councillor McDonald stated, it is worth residents appreciating that while some antenna will direct a main beam (or lobe) in one direction only, there will be smaller lobes from the side and rear of the antenna (called side lobes and back lobes). One would want to consider these as well as the main lobe at close range.

Unitary Development policy Notes for Kingston Appeal

The following are the relevant detailed Council policies. Some of these will be less relevant and one has to be careful to chose those items that will have the most serious bearing on your property. Residents living close by may for example here a low level hum from electrical equipment, however this would be a poor reason for someone living far away, but who wants to object because they have a child at the school opposite.

UDP Section - Protection of Residential Amenities

Sub Section H1

IN DETERMINING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THE

COUNCIL WILL HAVE REGARD TO THE NEED TO SAFEGUARD RESIDENTIAL

AMENITIES IN TERMS OF:

A. NOISE AND DISTURBANCE;

B. PRIVACY AND SAFETY;

C. OUTLOOK;

D. DAYLIGHT.

3.18 The first intention of this policy is to preclude the introduction of non-residential uses incompatible with predominantly residential areas. This is particularly important where developments would attract extraneous non-residential traffic, conflicting with the new emphasis on traffic calming and safety, especially where road widths are below modern standards and where on-street parking is important for residents. The second intention is to prevent unneighbourly development. It is important to safeguard the interests of adjoining residents by ensuring that their amenities, such as garden space, privacy and the character of the area, are maintained. In considering any development, including extensions to residential property and proposals for the sub-division of existing plots, considerable care and attention will be given to ensuring a secure environment, satisfactory parking and protection from noise etc. Policy BE12 and its associated text explain how sunlight and

daylight will be assessed.

UDP - STRATEGIC POLICY

UDP Section - Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment

UDP Sub Section STR6

THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO ACHIEVE A HIGH QUALITY BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN THE BOROUGH BY:-

A. CONSERVING OR ENHANCING THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, PARTICULARLY AREAS OF HIGH QUALITY AND CHARACTER AND BUILDINGS AND SITES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HISTORY OR HERITAGE OF THE BOROUGH;

B. REQUIRING A HIGH STANDARD OF DESIGN FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, APPROPRIATE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDINGS;

C. SAFEGUARDING KEY VIEWS WITHIN, OUT OF, AND INTO THE BOROUGH.

6.5 The Government’s White Paper "This Common Inheritance", together with LPAC’s Strategic Planning Advice for London, emphasise the importance of preserving and enhancing Britain’s built environment in order to conserve and promote the national heritage and maintain a healthy environment. The importance of London having some of the country’s best-known examples of architecture and building design is recognised.

Boroughs are urged in Draft Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities to identify, safeguard and conserve distinctive areas and individual properties which contribute to the vitality and diversity of the capital.

6.6 Much of the borough is characterised by attractive suburban housing areas which are valued by residents and whose qualities should be protected. Town centres provide a focus for local communities and particular care is needed to design and integrate new development. The Royal Borough is also proud of its heritage of buildings and archaeology which adds greatly to its distinctive character and it wishes to see these conserved and enhanced.

6.7 Improvements to the built environment can result from negotiation with developers to achieve attractive buildings that are appropriate to their setting using a policy framework backed by Supplementary Planning Guidance, which promotes high standards and sympathetic design. This approach, which must take account of national guidance, can also be supported by the Council’s own development initiatives. Negotiation of community benefit in the form of art in the environment can also enhance the environment.

6.8 Draft Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities also stresses the importance of protecting key local views. Development should be contained so that it does not intrude into such views, which will normally include important landmarks and attractive features such as the Thames. The Thames Landscape Strategy identifies distinctive reaches of landscape character along the river. Key views across the Thames into and out of the borough are protected by policy BE1. Details on the control of high buildings and their location are described in policy BE14.

UDP Section - Telecommunications Equipment

UDP Sub Section BE18

TELECOMMUNICATION AND BROADCASTING EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS AERIALS, MASTS, ANTENNAS, AND SATELLITE DISHES WHICH REQUIRE PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NORMALLY BE PERMITTED WHERE THEIR LOCATION, HEIGHT, SIZE, DESIGN, COLOUR, MATERIALS AND ANY ANCILLARY

STRUCTURE HAVE BEEN CHOSEN TO MINIMISE THEIR IMPACT ON:

i) THE AMENITY OF USERS OF THE BUILDING CONCERNED OR USERS OF ANY SURROUNDING LAND OR NEARBY BUILDING;

ii) THE EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED OR THE SETTING OF NEARBY BUILDINGS, WHEN VIEWED FROM A PUBLIC SPACE;

iii) THE APPEARANCE OR SETTING OF A LISTED BUILDING;

iv) THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA,

WITH PARTICULAR RESPECT TO CONSERVATION AREAS, AREAS OF SPECIAL CHARACTER, THE GREEN BELT AND METROPOLITAN OPEN LAND;

v) ANY LONG DISTANCE VIEW OR GENERAL SKYLINE. EQUIPMENT WHICH HAS A DIRECT ADVERSE IMPACT ON ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED IF THE OPERATOR CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSAL HAS A WIDER ENVIRONMENTAL OR OTHER MATERIAL BENEFIT.

6.98 Developments in telecommunications technology have resulted in a rapid increase in the number of satellite dishes and radio aerials, also known as antennas, installed on buildings or other structures or as free standing towers or masts. This increase necessitates controls on the number and size of equipment in order to minimise the problem of visual intrusion, particularly within residential areas. The problem has been recognised at the national level with the release of PPG8 (Telecommunications). The PPG outlines the permitted development rights as contained in the current General Development

Order, for the various kinds of telecommunications and broadcasting apparatus which can be installed, altered or replaced without planning permission. This policy cannot attempt to control the smallest of apparatus, such as TV aerials, which do not constitute development;

or other minor apparatus, such as masts installed by Code System Operators and satellite dishes installed on buildings by any person, which are within the limitation and conditions of permitted development. This policy only applies to larger communications development, when it is necessary to balance operational requirements and environmental concerns in order to take account of the growth and characteristics of the developing telecommunications industry.

6.99 The operator, when considering the operational requirements of any apparatus, should give due regard to the opportunity of using alternative sites or sharing sites, the scope for landscaping and screening, and the use of materials, colours and designs which

would minimise obtrusiveness. The operator should provide all relevant information to ensure applications are properly considered, including if appropriate; the relationship of the apparatus to the network; the constraints on the operator; the nature of the technology; and

the operator’s legal obligations. Detailed advice is contained in PPG8.

6.100 The environmental considerations do not impose a blanket restriction on apparatus in any specified areas but seek to guide the location and design of equipment to ensure there is only a minimal impact on the environment. Furthermore, the importance the

Council places on the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of conservation areas, areas of special character and significant areas of open land, will be reflected in the special consideration which will be given to applications for telecommunication equipment in these areas. Proposals affecting listed buildings will

require listed building consent and Policy BE6 will be the overriding consideration.

6.101 If there is an instance where a degree of adverse impact on any one of the criteria i)-v) may on balance be outweighed by the wider environmental or other material benefits, the operator may be required to provide a substantial justification, and the Council may

determine that another planning policy is a more worthy objective. For example such technology may: reduce the need to travel; ensure more effective use of the highway network; mean one higher mast is preferable to several smaller ones; or that the proposal is an extremely significant part of a national network.

Useful Hyperlinks

The Stewart Report http://www.iegmp.org.uk/index.html

The Mobile Phone Mast Action Group http://freespace.virginnet.co.uk/mast.action/

National Radiological Protection Board www.nrpb.org.uk

Click here to sign our petition

This Petition is Sponsored by the Liberal Democrats

The UDP extract is from Kingston upon Thames Councils UDP document.