News RSS Feed


Observer Owl

T-Mobile 'fight goes on'

1:52pm Friday 25th January 2008

comment Comments (13)   Have your say »


A Mill End mother who chained herself to a tree on to protest against the building of a phone mast near her children's primary school has insisted this weekend that the fight goes on.

Mother-of-two Lisa Soryano took the unusual action of chaining herself to the tree after learning that planning permission for a mast in Berry Lane, Rickmansworth, by German owned T-Mobile had been granted on appeal by a government inspector.

Plans for an eight metre mast (disguised as a telegraph pole) on a grass verge opposite numbers 71 and 73 have been twice rebuffed by councillors, who described the plans as incongruous, obtrusive, and a potential health hazard to pupils at the nearby Arnett Hills Primary School, just 80 metres away.

Residents are now trying to raise money to fund a legal challenge to the ruling before the deadline for action passes in three weeks' time.

Braving a bitterly cold morning, Mrs Soryano added her voice to a mass demonstration held on Saturday and attended by more than 150 people.

She said: "I'm normally a very quiet person but this really is too much.

"Nothing is more important to me than my children's health and believe this mast is a risk to them and other local children.

"We've got a lot of support in the community and have already raised a good amount of money to pay for a lawyer."

School headteacher Tracey Ali has given her full backing to the campaign. She said: "My school is just 80 metres from this site and I am very worried about it.

"They are on that site all day every day, even if they don't live nearby.

Supporter Yasmen Skelt has campaigned against phone masts since successfully suing the Government in 2000 to prevent the building of an Orange mast outside her home.

She said: "The evidence is clear, mobile phones and masts are a risk to health.

"The fact is that this is a German-owned company attempting to impose on us something that would be illegal in Germany.

"In Germany it is illegal to build a phone mast so close to a school.

"Like a lot of other European counties, this type of thing is taken very seriously there.

"But in this country we seem to let the companies do what they like."

A debate about the safety of mobile phones and masts has been ranging for years, with the industry and (to a very large extent) the Government on one hand and a number of concerned scientists on the other.

Ill effects linked to masts include tumours, headaches, sickness, insomnia and even nosebleeds - although the validity of these claims is yet to be proven.

The most comprehensive report to be published in the UK was the Stewart Report, released in 2000, when independent experts examined all available evidence to assess the risk to health posed by the industry.

Its ambiguous findings (expressed as nine conclusions) are used, however, by both sides of the debate to support their findings.


Your Say YourWatford Observer

Ian Brandon, Watford says...
3:52pm Fri 25 Jan 08

Good on these great campaigners. I'm also glad the council had the courage to decline the mast in the first place as I know how hard it is considering the finanical problems that come when trying to defend a decision. The Stewart Report's ambigious findings which are basically inconclusive as to whether their are health risks but that shouldn't mean the governemnt railroad phone masts, it should have meant the Government commissioned an independant review. It's scandalous the Government is using such an inconclusive report to allow mobile phone companies to get their way so often in these situations - another case of the Government more concerned about money coming into the country than the health of its citizens!

Wendy, Oxhey says...
5:13pm Fri 25 Jan 08

Well done to these campaigners for standing up to the mobile phone company for the health of their children. All I will say is that my husband used a mobile phone as if he was glued to it, from the day they first appeared and were the size of a house brick. 10 years later in 2003, he died aged 37 from a brain tumour - the tumour was in the exact location that Andy used to hold the phone to his head. I read the reports about links between cancer and mobiles - some agree the link, some deny it, but as far as I'm concerned my two young children will grow up without the use of mobiles.

Roy Stockdill, says...
5:42pm Fri 25 Jan 08

>Ill effects linked to masts include tumours, headaches, sickness, insomnia and even nosebleeds - although the validity of these claims is yet to be proven.<

It took years for the dangers of asbestos and thalidomide to be proved. How many people died or were severely damaged in the meantime? I rate the mobile phone companies as only marginally behind developers as Public Enemy Number One. But there will be no curbs on them since the government wants their billions.

Anne Peat, Rickmansworth says...
7:46pm Fri 25 Jan 08

As Chair of Governors of Arnett Hills School I would urge everyone who is anxious about the siting of masts near homes and schools to sign the e-petition on the Downing Street website
http://petitions.pm.
gov.uk/telephone-mas
ts/
and to write to their County Councillors urging them to adopt the same policy which Three Rivers District Council and Essex County Council have adopted - no masts on their land. The whole community is opposed to the siting of the mast on Berry Lane. The precautionary principle should prevail - no masts near schools and homes until we are SURE there are no ill effects. T Mobile haven't even explored putting the mast along the motorway where no-one will be in its radiation for very long. Why should their commercial interests come before our health, and the right of people to sleep easily in their homes.

Spencer Agneau, Moor Park says...
10:01pm Fri 25 Jan 08

T-Mobile's plan to erect a mast in Berry Lane, near Arnett Hills School is scandalous. Three Rivers Council voted against the initial mast proposal in April 2005 and again when it reappeared in April 2007. That democratic decision, taken by local district councilors responding to the concern of local residents, was overturned on appeal. The appeal was conducted by an Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol.
The appeal process is not democratic.
Three Rivers decided to ban masts from its land many years ago; the land in question in Berry Lane belongs to Herts. County Council. If Herts. CC adopted the same policy as Three Rivers, that would be the end of the matter and the German company T-Mobile would have to look elsewhere.
So come on everyone write, email, and phone and pester your County Councilors and Herts. County Council (John Wood). Someone will have to give eventually.

Jonathan, Rickmansworth says...
10:24pm Fri 25 Jan 08

What a strange world we live in. The local council unanimously turns down an application for a mast three times in the same location and then miraculously a government appointed Inspector finds that the site is perfectly suitable!
Local residents and schoolchildren then have to raise money to fight the decision. Is this a democratic process? I think not. Nobody in the area wants this mast - petition your MP, your councillors,Herts County Council and in particular T - Mobile.

How ironic that the Government can spend millions promoting health awareness in schools and then blithely expose young children to the dangers of mobile phone masts. Absolutely sickening. They and T - Mobile should be ashamed of themselves.

terry titwank, tied to the mast says...
12:44am Sat 26 Jan 08

Orange are a lot better!

Roy Stockdill, says...
12:02pm Sat 26 Jan 08

I've always thought the planning appeal procedure deeply flawed and biased against objectors. Anyone who's ever seen Yes Minister knows that that series was ever-so-close to the truth! There was an episode in which the civil servant in charge of a department deliberately chose an inspector who could be relied upon to produce the outcome the government wanted. I am quite certain that is what happens - and in the case of mobile phone masts the government is desperate to proliferate them because it wants a cut of the billions the phone companies make. And, of course, planning inspectors NEVER live anywhere near the area in which they make these outrageous deecisions, and so will not have to live with the consequences of their decision. Democracy? Don't make me laugh!

embee, says...
2:30pm Mon 28 Jan 08

Whilst a school has a lot of children in it, most primary school children will be there for 6.5 hours a day, 5 days a week, 39 weeks a year.

Just think how much longer they will be in their homes, yet a plan to put a mast outside homes never has this emotive response.

Roy Stockdill, says...
5:43pm Mon 28 Jan 08

Well, a lot of us objected when more masts were put on the top of Garston telephone exchange. The phone company went through the motions of inviting us to a so-called "consultation" - a charade at which they made soothing noises. Guess what? Our protests were ignored and the masts went up. I was told by one of the stooges that the reason for the masts was because we were in a "black hole" and there had been complaints from motorists passing through! He assured me the demands for masts were consumer-led and I told him he was talking b****cks, that it was industry-led in order that the phone companies could sell still more mobiles and make even vaster profits. Let's be clear about this - when there is profit involved, both for companies and the government, the private citizen comes very low down on the list of priorities.

Carol, Berry Lane says...
1:13pm Tue 29 Jan 08

If you dont want masts get rid of your mobile phones.
Whilst you use your mobile, the mobile companies will keep applying to put masts up.
Like the comment before, children actually only spend a small portion of their young lives in a school.
And yes I do have a mobile that I use regularly.

Roy Stockdill, says...
3:28pm Tue 29 Jan 08

Are you one of those infuriating people who have to tell the whole carriage, very loudly, that you're on a train when we all knew that in the first place? If I had my way, mobiles would certainly be banned on trains and buses and other public transport. I see no reason whatsoever why folks have to be in constant touch with their wife/husband/mum/bos
s/boyfriend/girlfrie
nd, etc. constantly and give a running commentary on their movements! Do the rest of us want to know? Surely if a call is really important it can wait until a quiet moment away from annoying others. In my experience, 95 per cent of the calls I overhear on a train are of no importance whatsover, but people simply yacking away because they are inveterate chatter-boxes who can't discipline themselves. Mobiles should be kept for the important calls and not gossip!

Mike Simpson, Rickmansworth says...
12:00pm Fri 8 Feb 08

Corporate arrogance at its worst
So, the mobile ‘phone company T-Mobile has won its appeal against a decision by Three Rivers District Council allowing them to put their new mast up on a site very close to Arnett Hills JMI School in Mill End, Rickmansworth. An astonishing example of corporate arrogance! Who’s going to be at risk from any consequent illnesses? The corporate fat cats at T-Mobile or the innocent children of Arnett Hills?

I for one won’t ever buy anything connected with T-Mobile, and I encourage you all to do likewise.

Comments are closed on this article.

Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »