News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Mother-of-three from Bushey slams 'shocking' plans for O2 and Vodafone mobile phone mast near Little Reddings Primary School

A Bushey mother-of-three has slammed “irresponsible” and “shocking” plans to place a mobile phone mast near a school and nursery.

Mobile operators 02 and Vodafone have made joint enquiries to Hertsmere Borough Council about installing an 11.8-metre mast, at the joining of Melbourne Road and Palmer Avenue, and a formal application is due to be entered early next week.

However, 40-year-old Kathryn Nickolai labelled the site choice “disgusting” as it sits only a few hundred metres from Little Reddings Primary School and Nursery, in Harcourt Road.

Although a government report published in 2000 failed to find any health risks with mobile phone mast radiation, it recommended children under-16 use their mobile phones sparingly as a precaution.

Mrs Nickolai said: “I'm very worried about the health risks. I will have to move out – it may sound extreme but I am not willing to be treated like a guinea pig and I am not prepared to treat my children like guinea pigs.”

The part-time exam invigilator also claims the proposed location will devalue property prices on the residential road which is “densely populated with families”.

Jim Stephenson, head of communications at O2, defended the application stating there is no known health risks to children or adults living near a mobile phone mast.

Related links

He said: “We have finished our consultation with residents and there were a few objections but this is not something the council can take any notice of as they need to look at the application objectively.

“We have seen no evidence mobile phone masts devalue property prices and it was not something we considered when looking at this location. As far as we're concerned this is the best location in the area.”

Planning legislation for mobile phone masts means applications may be approved by council officers without being formally assessed by a council planning committee.

Bushey estate agent Mike Cole estimated that, due to the negative press associated with phone masts, a seller would have to drop the asking price of a £300,000 property by about £15,000 to attract the expected level of interest.

Mrs Nickolai also claims she was not consulted by the mobile operator about the plans, despite living only six doors away from the proposed location.

She said: “All they did was stick a poster up on a lamppost about it. It feels under-handed to me.

“It is disgusting and shocking that they are so blasé. I have spoken to about ten of my neighbours and we all feel the same - if it goes ahead we will get a petition. I just hope our voices will be heard – it will have a huge impact on our lives.”

Comments(17)

Nascot says...
7:57pm Tue 16 Nov 10

What is the betting Ms Nickolai has a mobile phone? If so, then in which case, she should seriously sit back and try to figure out how they work. OK I'll give you the answer, it's not too hard -PHONE MASTS! So it would be OK for her to use her phone and masts near someone elses house, devaluing their property, but not hers.

Garston Tony says...
9:20am Wed 17 Nov 10

Nascot, when I was reading the article I had the exact same thoughts as you. Maybe she is one of the ever decreasing number of people that doesnt have a mobile we dont know for sure but the odds are that she will have one and if so is being hypocritical.

GearUp2 says...
11:42pm Wed 17 Nov 10

Of course Ms Nickolai has a right to choose to use a mobile phone. Children have no choice and it is right that they are protected by their parents. In the same way it is natural for citizen's to expect protection against irresponsible corporate actions.

Garston Tony says...
9:04am Thu 18 Nov 10

Who says its irresponsible? And if the mother does use a mobile but thinks they/masts are a danger to her child isn't she being hypocritical?

DannyMan says...
10:12am Thu 18 Nov 10

"Children have no choice and it is right that they are protected by their parents."
.
Protected from what?

bushbabes says...
10:30am Thu 18 Nov 10

I find it amazing that people are so short-sighted. What difference does it make if someone owns a mobile phone. Who wants a mobile phone mast next to their home? Nobody is saying tear them all down, just locate them in better places!!
The mobile companies need to take the local community feeling into account.

donegal says...
10:38am Thu 18 Nov 10

nasacot and garston tony dont appear to have children or maybe an interest bin 02. There are alwys options for mast location but the operaters take the cheapest one whatever the cost to the local community. have they optimised the power output from other sites how have they conducted their consultation was it open and above board? If not what are they hiding

Garston Tony says...
12:03pm Thu 18 Nov 10

Bushbabes, the masts need to be located where they will provide coverage for the millions of people out there who use mobile phones. If there could be one mast in the middle of nowhere then i'm sure everyone would be happy but smaller masts are needed here there and everywhere otherwise customers tend to complain about poor coverage. And I do have children and no no shares or other association with O2 or any other operator beyond being a normal customer of one of the main providers. Any 'cost' to the community is purely due to scaremongering, perpetuated by stories like this

donegal says...
12:13pm Thu 18 Nov 10

im sure the people who have asbestoses wouldnt agree with you garston tony the research funded mainly by the operators shows no PROVEN link to health problems just as the asbestos studies said

bushbabes says...
12:55pm Thu 18 Nov 10

I don't believe the cost to the community is considered at all otherwise the mobile giants would handle site locations more sensitively. Look at the U.S, Australia and New Zealand they have banned masts around schools, hospitals and residential areas. 50% of Scottish councils don't allow masts around these areas either. Why should this be? If there are no perceived risks attached?

Nascot says...
12:58pm Thu 18 Nov 10

I too have children and no shares in any mobile phone companies. Incidentally, I also have a mobile phone mast very close to my property

Maclanx says...
1:37pm Thu 18 Nov 10

A "few hundred metres away" from the school! Not even close by then.

donegal says...
1:38pm Thu 18 Nov 10

Google Mobile masts health risks and look at the research

bushbabes says...
1:46pm Thu 18 Nov 10

I think ignorance is bliss!

donegal says...
4:35pm Thu 18 Nov 10

why are they not using the old radio station at old reading ? BT charging too much ?

bushbabes says...
9:45pm Fri 19 Nov 10

General principles for telecommunications
development

The Government’s general policy on telecommunications
development is to facilitate the growth of efficient and
effective telecommunication systems whilst keeping the
environmental impact of such development to a minimum.
The siting and design of telecommunications equipment, if
undertaken with care and sensitivity, will be vital in
achieving this policy aim. Good siting and design should
not only be respected in environmentally sensitive areas but
also be applied to all telecommunications development. In
all circumstances, the sensitivity to context of the proposed
development should be considered.

donegal says...
3:47pm Mon 22 Nov 10

even on their own informastion provided in the agreed code of practice appendix f (4) and I quote "ICNIRP ( the total strength of the signal) is determined by mathmatical calculation and implemented by by careful locatio.
On of antennas, ACCESS RESTRICTIONS AND OR BARRIERS.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CANNOT UNKNOWINGLY ENTER CLOSE TO THE ANTENNAS WHERE EXPOSURE MAY EXCEED THE RELEVENT GUIDLINES"

SO THERE IS A HEALTH RISK THEN !!!!

click2find

Most popular






About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree