Mobile phone mast proposals blocked (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Plans for mast near Abbots Langley schools blocked
4:01pm Thursday 6th September 2012 in News
Attempts to put a mobile phone mast within close proximity to three schools in Abbots Langley have again been blocked.
Mobile phone operators O2 and Vodafone appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment to overturn Three Rivers District Council ’s planning refusal for a 12.5m pole with six antennas on Gallows Hill Lane.
The refusal was made on the grounds that the mast would harm the character and appearance of the area with Martin Whitehead, the planning inspector, concluding arguements about the proximity to schools were invalid.
Councillor Sara Bedford , who spoke out against the mast, welcomed the decision.
She said: "It is very good news. I was a little surprised they didn’t give more credence to it being near schools but it was quite important they are looking at visual elements too."
Three Rivers must pay some of the mobile phone companies’ costs after Mr Whitehead threw out their objections relating to schools.
Comments(40)
Toshhorn
says...
4:10pm Thu 6 Sep 12
drunkenduck
says...
4:24pm Thu 6 Sep 12
Toshhorn wrote:Police station, that once used to be the library many, many, many years ago.
we all want mobile pones but none of us want these masts.
I think they should all go on publicly owned buildings, away from schools or childrens play areas.
The Police station in Abbots Langley would be a useful location to erect this one
How can it harm the character and appearance of the area, it's already been ruined. Abbots Langley used to be a nice village at one time, now it's just a small ruined place with expanding houses estates with more restaurants then most towns have etc in the area.
Reg Edit
says...
4:26pm Thu 6 Sep 12
Big business 1, people 0.
Sometimes we are lucky that it can be refused on other grounds, whereas really they should be refused on the grounds that the people of this country all care about - health risks, particularly to young children!
I hope we get a government that will one day respect the wishes of its people on issues such as this, instead of telling us there is nothing to be concerned about. I can't see Labour, the Libs or the Tories doing that, can you?
Vote UKIP, we will govern for the people of this country, unlike the other parties who believe you just need to be told what to do while being taxed to high heaven.
This time you were lucky with the mast, who knows what will happen next time?
drunkenduck
says...
4:36pm Thu 6 Sep 12
That sounds rubbish Reg, as Toshhorn mentioned "we all want mobile phones but none of us want these masts". People can't have it both ways. Many people complain they can't receive a signal then complain when their or a phone company's try to resolves it. And everybody moans about having a mask built nearby.
LSC
says...
5:20pm Thu 6 Sep 12
I don't believe in zombies because there is no evidence they exist; but who knows, someone might find some tomorrow.
But for exactly the same reason I don't object to masts; there is no evidence of a health risk and that is how most of us make choices in life.
If people are truly worried by microwaves then stop sticking transmitters/receive
rs up to your ears right next to your brain, throw out your wireless network at home and at work, get rid of the remote for the telly and never fly on a plane or even visit an airport.
In fact, the only real course of action is to live in a metal bunker, because right now there is a weather satelite beaming them straight at you.
Quite frankly, I'm more afraid of the zombies.
Reg Edit
says...
5:53pm Thu 6 Sep 12
you are logically correct according to all the information sent our way by government and big business.
Of course, governments and big business have not always been fully forthcoming with the truth and so it is forgivable if people, rightly or wrongly, are distrustful of government and big business, at least where health risks are concerned. Children are already advised not to use mobiles for prolonged periods.
There are indeed risks all about us. Some risks we can do something about, and some we can't. You can't blame parents for erring on the side of caution where their child's health is concerned. I know I would, every time.
fenton72
says...
6:17pm Thu 6 Sep 12
Toshhorn wrote:as you say. everyone has a phone but no one wants the mast. i work for a network, and a specific village (unnamed ) kept complaining about poor signal, so we wanted to put a mast in the met line station car park to improve the signal, which is a fair distance from any residency, the local residents kicked up and planning permission denied. to this day they still complain about signal.
we all want mobile pones but none of us want these masts.
I think they should all go on publicly owned buildings, away from schools or childrens play areas.
The Police station in Abbots Langley would be a useful location to erect this one
in my opinion shut up, get a life. after all there has been NO proof of danger to health.
in fact theres prob more danger with WIFI. everywhere you go theres wifi. how many people st less than 2ft away from the wifi transmitter in the home,
the higher buildings are better for signal.
if you want a signal i think you best stop objecting to any masts
pr76uk
says...
6:23pm Thu 6 Sep 12
Relikade
says...
8:26pm Thu 6 Sep 12
The Rover
says...
8:33pm Thu 6 Sep 12
LSC
says...
8:43pm Thu 6 Sep 12
Reg Edit wrote:I agree we very often do not get all the facts Reg, something that I frequently point out when it comes to recycling.
LSC,
you are logically correct according to all the information sent our way by government and big business.
Of course, governments and big business have not always been fully forthcoming with the truth and so it is forgivable if people, rightly or wrongly, are distrustful of government and big business, at least where health risks are concerned. Children are already advised not to use mobiles for prolonged periods.
There are indeed risks all about us. Some risks we can do something about, and some we can't. You can't blame parents for erring on the side of caution where their child's health is concerned. I know I would, every time.
But the erring on the side of caution argument simply doesn't stand up.
I can PROVE that travelling in a car has more dangers than walking.
I can PROVE that in many circumstances a 4x4 is more dangerous than a saloon both in handling issues and toxins coming out the exhaust.
And yet what do you see lined up outside every school each morning? (Badly parked often, which can be a huge safety hazard)
Are these the same parents that are so worried about phone masts because of the children and would never put them at risk, or a different lot?
Nascot
says...
9:47pm Thu 6 Sep 12
Reg Edit
says...
8:47am Fri 7 Sep 12
LSC wrote:LSC,
Reg Edit wrote:I agree we very often do not get all the facts Reg, something that I frequently point out when it comes to recycling.
LSC,
you are logically correct according to all the information sent our way by government and big business.
Of course, governments and big business have not always been fully forthcoming with the truth and so it is forgivable if people, rightly or wrongly, are distrustful of government and big business, at least where health risks are concerned. Children are already advised not to use mobiles for prolonged periods.
There are indeed risks all about us. Some risks we can do something about, and some we can't. You can't blame parents for erring on the side of caution where their child's health is concerned. I know I would, every time.
But the erring on the side of caution argument simply doesn't stand up.
I can PROVE that travelling in a car has more dangers than walking.
I can PROVE that in many circumstances a 4x4 is more dangerous than a saloon both in handling issues and toxins coming out the exhaust.
And yet what do you see lined up outside every school each morning? (Badly parked often, which can be a huge safety hazard)
Are these the same parents that are so worried about phone masts because of the children and would never put them at risk, or a different lot?
I didn't say human nature was logical or even consistent. It is just human nature.
Mobile phone masts are a perceived health risk by many people. What's more, they do not have to be placed near or on school sites, so it is not surprising that many parents object to them being placed near or on school sites out of principal.
Don't expect logic, or even truth, to prevail when it comes to mobile masts. I doubt we have anywhere near all the facts regarding health issues and mobile phones/masts or will have them for a very long time to come, and because of that it is difficult for concerned people and parents to make rational decisions about mobile masts and phones.
Remember smoking. The health risks were denied and covered up for years by big business.
Now the risks are well-known, many people still smoke and new smokers are starting smoking every day. For these people, the risks of smoking are worth it, and anyway, it probably won't happen to them. We all know people who smoked into their 80's and had a good life.
People make their own choices about their own health. You can't blame people who suspect there may be health risks to their children from mobile masts and wish to reduce that risk as much as possible.
The fact people may risk their lives by driving a car or going white water rafting on holidays is neither here nor there.
The fact is, there are some risks worth taking, and there are some that are not. For many people, mobile phone masts near schools and playgrounds are one of the risks that are simply not worth taking, and I for one agree with them.
TRT
says...
9:34am Fri 7 Sep 12
On top of that, the transmission power of the phone is variable, a feature designed to prolong battery life, so if it has to connect to a more distant cell tower, it will ramp up the radiated power, right next to your head.
Most TV remotes now use nearly visible infrared, though some are now using Bluetooth. Not much danger from a TV remote. We are constantly being bombarded with all manner of ionising radiation from the planet and the rest of the universe. But I agree that the masts should not really be sited within 100m of a school, just in case. Let's just hope no-one has stuck a transmitter right on top of something like the maternity ward, eh?!
ajuba1
says...
10:10am Fri 7 Sep 12
Relikade
says...
10:21am Fri 7 Sep 12
ajuba1 wrote:That was the reason watford hospital allowed them on the roof wasn't it? Plus the much needed cash obviously
I don't think it would be a particular problem on top of a maternity ward as most mums and babies are only there for a very short while.
TRT
says...
10:22am Fri 7 Sep 12
Roy Stockdill
says...
11:23am Fri 7 Sep 12
I find it astonishing how much information people give away about themselves when talking on a mobile phone in a public place. I once heard a young woman on a train giving her full name, address and bank details to someone! I was very tempted to point out to her that there could have been a fraudster listening and noting her details, but I decided against it because she was obviously young and fairly thick and I would probably only have got a mouthful of abuse.
And then, of course, there are those who find it necessary to constantly phone their secretary or a colleague to tell them where they are and keep them informed about their business. I suppose it makes them feel important.
When I was "on the road" for a national newspaper, before mobile phones were invented, I considered it a blessed relief sometimes to be out of contact with the office and be able to enjoy a drink or a meal in a pub without them finding me. Those were the days!
garston tony
says...
12:01pm Fri 7 Sep 12
I'd love for the nearby schools to do a survey and find out how many of the children have their own mobile phones and how many of their parents do too.
I'd love it even better if we knew if Cllr Bedford owned a mobile and how many of those residents she was representing do too.
I'm no health expert and dont know enough to agree or disagree about the health concerns however for all the benefits mobiles bring they have certainly had a negative social impact in my opinion especially in recent years where mobiles are seemingly used less to talk and more to communicate and interact over social websites etc.
Sara
says...
12:42pm Fri 7 Sep 12
As others have said, life is all about risk, perceived and actual. And with a science degree, I have a reasonable understanding of those risks. However according to the precautionary approach set out in the Stewart Report, phone masts should not be erected within 400 metres of schools. The siting for this mast is within 300 metres of two primary schools and a special school. That’s why I was surprised that the Inspector did not give more weight to that point.
The Stewart Report also stresses that young people should not use mobile phones for any period of time, due to the effect on under developed skulls. That is for parents to police with their own children.
This mast was also proposed to be an over-tall structure three quarters of the way up a long, straight hill. Even if masts are acceptable, there will still be locations where they would be unacceptable due to their appearance.
There are also areas where they
cannot be sited for transmission reasons. One of those is in areas with trees around, unless the mast is built much higher to be clear of the trees in the summer and allow room for future growth. That is one reason why the mast could not go on the police station, the other being that it is in the Conservation Area.
Toshhorn
says...
12:50pm Fri 7 Sep 12
LSC
says...
1:03pm Fri 7 Sep 12
That is a lifetime in technology terms.
Have you actually read the report? I have. It is wooly at best, and the conclusion is: "We haven't really got a clue but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest health issues."
In fact, the Stewart report suggests mounting masts on school premises as they might benefit from the rent.
Hardly 'damning evidence', is it?
garston tony
says...
1:25pm Fri 7 Sep 12
If there is a report, im assuming backed up with medical research, advising that children shouldn’t use mobiles at all that highlights how inconsistent our laws are. Slight aside but certain drugs are illegal but alcohol and tobacco which causes far more harm in terms of numbers arent. You cant buy cigarettes if your under 18 but you can use a mobile from the moment you're old enough to hold one despite its potentially to harm you as a child.
If mobiles are harmful to developing bodies shouldn’t the use of them also be banned under a certain age? Also the placing of masts near schools seems to ignore the fact that children spend more time at home than that location where there could quite legally be a mast right next door to them (and be using a mobile to call/text/skype/twit
er/facebook their mates anyway)
If people are that concerned about the effects of mobile phone technology they can solve the problem immediately by not using any. Of course very few people would be willing to do that and a lot of the opposition to masts does seem to be nimby-ism
LSC
says...
1:27pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Another complete fallacy is that using a phone on a plane will make it crash.
No it won't.
The problem with using a mobile on plane was three-fold.
First, every electronic device used on a plane needs to be passed by the CAA. With new models of phone coming out monthly, this is simply too much work for them to cope with.
Second, at ground level your phone might be 'talking' to 2, maybe 3 masts.
In the air, you might be 'talking' to 300. If we all did it, the system back then would overload.
Third, they would have to work out where the plane was to know which Tariff to charge. Is 'Just off the coast of Ireland on a 747' UK tariff or international?
I know this isn't relevant, but I post it for interest and to point out a lot of public perception is simply wrong.
Reg Edit
says...
3:11pm Fri 7 Sep 12
I don't think it is nimby-ism. I don't live in Abbots or have children at school there, so I can hardly be accused of being a nimby.
I object because I think it is plain wrong, for the reasons I outlined earlier.
Using the word Nimby is meant to cow those who dare to speak out. It's a word used to isolate protesters and try to smear them as people with a vested interest who are going against the clear common good. It's about time the word, or insult, if you like, was dropped from our vocabulary.
There are people of principle around, and many peoples principles include keeping these pesky masts away from schools.
There are two schools of thought, ours and yours. Neither have the monopoly on being right, but there's no harm in humouring us objectors. Who knows, evidence may one day come to light to prove us objectors were right all along.
Relikade
says...
4:30pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Roy Stockdill
says...
4:41pm Fri 7 Sep 12
I confess I haven't read sufficient about the Stewart report and whether mobile phones are harmful. My principal objections to them are: 1) the masts are frequently ugly and in the wrong place; 2) the noise pollution caused by unthinking and moronic users shouting into them at the top of their voice on buses and trains sometimes makes me seriously contemplate committing strangulation!
Roy Stockdill
says...
4:42pm Fri 7 Sep 12
I confess I haven't read sufficient about the Stewart report and whether mobile phones are harmful. My principal objections to them are: 1) the masts are frequently ugly and in the wrong place; 2) the noise pollution caused by unthinking and moronic users shouting into them at the top of their voice on buses and trains sometimes makes me seriously contemplate committing strangulation!
LSC
says...
5:07pm Fri 7 Sep 12
A piece of street furniture that serves a purpose, like a lamp post or a road sign.
To go back to my Zombie analogy; there are also two schools of thought. There are people who genuinely believe in zombies and to paraphrase: Who knows, evidence may one day come to light to prove us zombie believers were right all along.
Quite right, it might. It would completely defy the laws of physics, biology, some religions and logic, but yes, it might.
However, most of us do not advocate burying the dead with a stake through their heart (Or is that vampires?) just in case it is true.
Most people look at the evidence, the physics and the logic and conclude the worst risk from a phone mast is if it fell on you.
If the problem is how ugly they are, and they are, come clean and say so and argue that point.
I do agree that corporate profit has come before health and safety in many incidents; Bhopal, Aberfan, 90% of third world or Chinese workplaces.
But in this case the physics just don't add up.
Roy Stockdill
says...
5:17pm Fri 7 Sep 12
In the 1950s when my parents had a pub in the Calder Valley, near Hebden Bridge in Yorkshire, they had a number of regular customers who worked for one of the major local employers, Cape Asbestos. I recall my dad saying to my mum one day that it was "funny" how many of them had died. Yet it was something like a decade later before the scandal broke as a national news story and the whole factory was shut down when it was finally realised how dangerous asbestos was to humans. It took many more years for the victims' families to get compensation.
And only this week we finally had a sort-of apology from the manufacturers of thalidomide for the terrible damage they inflicted on children born with deformities.
Corporate greed has much to answer for and not just in the Third World, either.
Reg Edit
says...
5:25pm Fri 7 Sep 12
Zombies (or the lack of them) have been around for a long time now, as people have been dying since humans first walked the earth, yet there is no evidence for zombies. I personally do not feel threatened by them at all. Also, there is no money to be made by denying their existence, so no financial argument for keeping them quiet.
The same can't be said for phones and masts. They are relatively new, technology is changing constantly and there is a lot of money to be made by playing down any potential health risks from them.
If I had to bet money, I would bet against zombies existing rather than bet there are no health risks from mobile phones and masts.
I don't mind how ugly they are, in fact I have seen some made to look like tall trees, so they don't have to be ugly. No, for me it's the potential health risk.
They are pesky in that mobile operators want to put them where no-one wants them, outside their houses (a la the cassiobury estate) or on or near public buildings like schools and hospitals.
LSC
says...
2:22pm Sat 8 Sep 12
If standing 100m from a mast is dangerous, then so is standing 500m from a mast. A little less dangerous, it could be argued, but still dangerous nonetheless. In fact, anywhere you can get a signal is a bit dangerous; it is the same microwaves at the same frequency, just less intense but over time will have the same effect. 5 days at 100m will give the same effect as 8 days at 200m and so on. (These maths are to illustrate the point only, they are not from a study, but the principal is scientifically correct)
Therefore I would understand (although not agree with) a mass campaign to ban mobile phones as a danger to children.
But there isn't. What the parents objecting in this case are effectively saying is 'We don't want our kids to get baldy hurt, but we don't mind if they get hurt a little bit over a longer period'
That obviously is not true, so one must logically conclude there is another reason for the objection.
Either they don't understand science, in which case don't use it as an argument, or they are Nimbys.
The is no other conclusion to draw.
theturpster
says...
9:26am Sun 9 Sep 12
Just saying....
garston tony
says...
9:34am Mon 10 Sep 12
And as I said its all well and good keeping masts away from school but that’s utterly pointless if many of the children have a mobile of their own!
I'd agree with Roy, probably in small doses a mobile isnt going to do you too much harm but if its by your ear or in your hands all the time as it is with many people for whom it’s become another limb they cant do without then there is potential for harm. Not just physical harm but social too, the amount of times I've seen groups in social settings where instead of chatting they're all on their mobiles, or parents with their kids where they totally ignore them as their too busy talking/texting/brow
sing the web. We're so busy communicating by these devices that people have fogotten how to communicate in person it seems! Oh, and people buying something in a shop who continue to chat whilst paying. Grrr, how rude
Roy Stockdill
says...
9:48am Mon 10 Sep 12
Earlier this year I was at a weekend genealogical conference to which I have been going regularly for many years. I don't go these days for the talks and lectures because I've heard them all before! I go to socialise, meet old friends and have a few drinks. We were in a posh conference centre in Essex and one evening there were 12 of us sitting hugger-mugger round a large table in the main bar. Very jolly you might think - except I was the only one not faffing away on a laptop, iphone or tablet, taking photos, collecting e-mail and taking part in chat forums. I'm afraid I made myself rather unpopular when (admittedly after a few glasses of red vino) I expressed my views on what they were doing. I have decided I probably won't go next year.
You are so right - technology, especially mobile phones, can be the enemy of our society as well as a boon.
Reg Edit
says...
11:33am Mon 10 Sep 12
Garston Tony, I don't think it's up to you to tell the great people of Britain what to think or do, or whether they can complain. Who do you think you are, a Liberal, Labour, EU or Green politician?
You're not, are you?
LSC
says...
1:06pm Mon 10 Sep 12
I have a mobile phone but it is now about 6 years old and (gasp!) only makes phone calls. No Apps, no internet, no games. I keep it in the car in case I break down.
My friends think I'm odd, but they don't seem to 'get it'. If I do not answer my home land-line, it is because I am OUT DOING SOMETHING. And if I am out doing something I don't particularly want you to ring me with the latest news about your cat. I'M BUSY or I'd be at home and answering the phone.
What is so weird about that? Apparently a lot, freakishly so.
garston tony
says...
12:39pm Tue 11 Sep 12
garston tony
says...
12:47pm Tue 11 Sep 12
It was actually a sequence of pictures starting off with her pushing a pushchair one handed whilst talking on the mobile. Of course it is a snapshot of one moment in time but she isnt looking where she is going either.
Next couple of shots are of the buggy toppling over and a poor baby being thrown out of the pushchair and onto the floor. The child is apparently four months old and landed face first on the pavement. I would imagine quite a traumatic event in its young life this incident, but the mother in the next couple of shots is shown struggling to pick up the child and right the pushchair whilst, and here is the 'punch line', whilst still having a conversation on her mobile and (again snapshot in time) not sign of any concern on her face.
For me this is horrendous on so many levels and just one,albeit extreme example, of the negative way mobiles impact on our lives. If that was me , as I would hope it would be for everyone, the phone would have been dropped immediately and all my attention would have been on the child, but apparently for some chatting to a mate is more important than the welfare of a young baby who I can only imagine must have been terrified and crying frantic tears but getting no comfort from the very person it looks to for protection.
I have to be honest I was fuming when I saw those pictures, absolutely disgusted. Worse still the papers comment was not about the childs welfare but about pavements not being level or something. Where are our priorities these days?
Toshhorn says...
4:09pm Thu 6 Sep 12
I think they should all go on publicly owned buildings, away from schools or childrens play areas.
The Police station in Abbots Langley would be a useful location to erect this one