I?ve grouped the information into different sections.
For each link, I?ve included a title and a snippet showing the
The executive summary is:
To stop a mast being erected in a given location, you need to
challenge the application procedure and technicalities or get a lot of
people to complain (mast near a school).
I believe your best bet lies in going through the Guildford
Telecommunications SPG that I?ve linked below and find omissions in
the application you have. Maybe alternative sites have not been
examined thoroughly; maybe mast sharing hasn?t been envisaged in
I do not believe that saying ?it could be dangerous? will work. There
have been no conclusive studies to prove the case, therefore it will
be difficult to convince a council and even more so a judge. Moreover
if you are not in the vicinity of a school, there is no ?widespread
I also make the case for the importance of the incorrect postcode below.
Please let me know if I can assist you further or provide you with
Successes in opposing mast permissions:
Mobile phone mast plan scrapped (26th October 2004)
Phone company Hutchinson 3G withdrew their application to erect the
mast following opposition from local residents.
Switch off mast, council orders (20th November 2004)
North Norfolk District Council issued the "stop" notice against O2 on
Friday after councillors voted in favour of the move with a 12 to one
The mast was switched on in Yarmouth Road in February 2004 without
planning permission and a retrospective application was refused by
North Norfolk District Council.
"The mast is near a nursery and two other schools and also the sixth
form college," he added.
While the two sides wait for the outcome of O2's appeal against
refusal, the town council is to issue the "stop" notice on Monday.
Mobile phone mast plans withdrawn (14th October 2004)
Mobile phone company 02 has withdrawn its plans to site a mobile phone
mast in Swindon.
O2 wanted to put up the mast in the residential area of Kings Hill.
Some residents protested against the proposals; O2 says it pulled out
because the land is owned by the town council, which did not offer
Phone company told to remove mast (5th October 2004)
A mobile phone company which erected a mast near a school in Worcester
has been told to take it down.
Vodaphone put up the temporary mast within 400 yards of Claines
Primary school last Friday.
The move came just two weeks after local residents successfully
stopped the mast being erected in a field on Cornmeadow Lane after a
Success due to procedural problems. This case is interesting because
it seems that it is one of the few involving an individual rather than
3G HUTCHISON LIMITED
Look at pages 20 and 21 if you want to quickly see the result of the case.
Mothers' firebomb threat kills plan for T-Mobile mast
Mast Hysteria swept through south London after five mothers threatened
to firebomb an inner-city church if the Vicar allowed a 15.5 Metre
T-Mobile transmitter to be erected.
Phone mast 'test case' rejected (13th November 2004)
Health risks from masts have not been proven, but the National
Radiological Protection Board advises a "precautionary approach" to
siting masts near schools.
But the judge ruled: "It remains central government's responsibility
to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health."
Planning permission had been refused by Harrogate Council and the
companies took the case to the High Court, where a judge ruled the
planned mast met safety guidelines, prompting this week's hearing at
the Court of Appeal.
But the judges said the planning decision was not the place for
determining health safeguards.
I believe this is the same case :
Mast row parents head for No 10 (20th October 2004)
A group of parents fighting plans for a 25-metre mobile phone mast
near three schools in Harrogate have taken their fight to Downing
In June, a High Court judge ruled that the proposals - by T-Mobile,
Orange and Hutchinson 3G - met current safety guidelines.
Sir Richard Tucker said the plans did not give rise to "actual
danger", even though there was a "perception of risk" amongst the
Quashing the planning inspector's decision, he said that current
government guidelines were concerned with "actual rather than
perceived health risk".
This seems to be a very similar case to yours. You could try and
contact him and see if he has any advice or information. I cannot
provide the contact details myself, but Infobel.co.uk is a good site
for finding phone numbers.
Third mobile mast angers father (29th September 2004)
A primary school teacher fears plans for a third mobile phone mast
near the bottom of his garden could endanger the lives of his three
T-MOBILE (UK) LTD & OTHERS v FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE (12th November 2004)
The judge had been correct to hold that the inspector had
misunderstood PPG8. The inspector had been wrong to find that,
although the proposal had met the ICNIRP guidelines levels, the policy
had been open-ended. The judge had been correct to hold that the
guidance contained in PPG8 had been perfectly clear and that there had
been nothing open-ended about the policy.
Hundreds sign phone mast petition (30th November 2004)
Parents of children at a Cornish school are fighting to halt
construction of a planned mobile phone mast.
An application has been made by communications company O2 for a site
near King Charles School at Falmouth.
More than 450 parents and residents have signed a protest petition.
Plans for a mast at another location nearby were turned down four
The phone company said the mast would involve low power radio
transmitters, hundreds of times lower than a mobile phone and less
than a tenth of the power of a taxi's two-way radio.
1. Case for procedural challenge: incorrect postcode.
- wrong people contacted
- right people contacted but unaware of correct location
- incomplete or inaccurate surveying of other sites or possibilities
because they might have used the wrong location when measuring
Could delay installation, but unlikely to prevent it completely.
2. File complaints using the following model and using the council?s
Look at pages 28 to 34 for reasons that could be raised to the council
(is this the same mast?).
Page numbers are PDF pages, rather than document pages.
This Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) provides advice to all
those with an interest in the siting of telecommunication masts in
Guildford Borough. Whilst we have issued this guidance primarily for
use by telecommunications operators, it will be an important source of
information for the general public interested in the issues involved.
Under permitted development, the prior approval procedure allows the
Council to control the siting and appearance of certain
telecommunications apparatus under 15m (unless in a Conservation
Area). Operators must therefore apply to the Council for consideration
of the siting and appearance of the proposed telecommunications
development. A decision on whether siting and appearance is acceptable
must be issued within 56 days of receipt of the prior approval
application. Failure to issue a decision within this period is
equivalent to ?no objection?, which means the mast can be erected.
We will expect operators to be able to demonstrate that other relevant
stakeholders and appropriate members of the public (for example
immediate neighbours) have received appropriate consultation.
I wonder if any of the following applies to your case, if so it?s
worth putting any of the reasons in any request you make.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT:
1. THERE WOULD BE NO UNACCEPTABLE IMPACT ON THE BUILT OR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
2. WHERE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT COULD OTHE COUNCIL CAN BE SATISFIED THAT
ALTERNATIVES TO THE EQUIPMENT PROPOSED, THE SITE CHOSEN AND THE
POSSIBILITY OF SHARING FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FULLY EXPLORED AND FOR
TECHNICAL OR LEGAL REASONS ARE IMPRACTICAL.
3. ANY MAST OR OTHER EQUIPMENT PROPOSED IS APPROPRIATELY SITED,
DESIGNED, COLOURED AND LANDSCAPED TO CAUSE MINIMAL ENVIRONMENTAL
4. A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE NETWORK HAS BEEN AGREED WITH THE
COUNCIL WHICH HAS REGARD TO THE LOCATION AND TYPE OFFACILITIES
DETERMINED HAVING REGARD TO THE NEED TO MINIMISE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
PARTICULAR ATTENTION WILL BE PAID TO THE SITING OF ALL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
CONSERVATION AREAS, LISTED BUILDINGS, AONB, AGLV, SSSI?S, SNCI?S, OPEN
COUNTRYSIDE AND WHERE DEVELOPMENT MAY AFFECT THE AMENITIES OF
OCCUPIERS OR NEARBY PROPERTIES.
Is all this information present in the application? If not, you can
complain about ignoring proper procedure.
We encourage pre-application discussions with operators on specific
development proposals. We will require, in writing from operators,
prior to any discussions (as set out in the Government?s Best Practice
An explanation of their needs in a particular area;
Specific details of the type and location of the proposals;
Details of any other mobile phone systems on the building or site;
Area of search and details of alternative options, including mast
sharing; ? Details of the design options considered;
Details of the proposed consultation strategy; and
The proposed ?Traffic Light Model? rating for a proposed site (see the Glossary).
Does this apply?
Guildford Borough has a high quality rural environment, much of it
designated as Green Belt and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(the Surrey Hills AONB) as well as a number of Conservation Areas and
Listed Buildings throughout the Borough and in the historic town
centre. We therefore encourage all operators to consider carefully the
design and siting of any proposed telecommunications development.
Has this been done?
As part of any application for telecommunications development, we will
require evidence that site sharing has been investigated. This
evidence should include consideration of our ?Telecommunications Mast
Register? and sites in neighbouring Districts, and reasons why mast
sharing is not considered a viable option (this may be as part of the
Assuming worst case scenario and it does go up, you can probably
demand that all these conditions are met:
Where it is not possible to mast share or use existing buildings and
structures, operators should aim to minimise the visual impact of any
proposal on the environmental quality of the Borough. There are a
number of ways in which the impact of new masts and base stations can
be greatly reduced. These include:
Sites within close proximity to similar structures, for example, lamp
posts or road signs or enclosed within commercial and industrial
Sites within an existing group of trees of mature woodland;
The use of modern slimline or monopole designs; and
The use of appropriate colouring.
Unfortunately, perceived health risk is not a valid objection.
As a result of the Stewart Report, the Government has taken the view
that if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP (International
Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation) guidelines it should not be
necessary for an authority, in processing an application, to consider
health effects further (PPG8, page 10). Consequently all new base
stations are expected to meet the ICNIRP guidelines. Operators are
however required to consult schools and colleges near their proposals
before making an application.
Some contact details for further discussion, you might already have
these on the application.
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS
No-Go Areas (a) Not within 500 metres of schools, homes and
workplaces. (b) Not in Conservation Areas. (c) Not in protected areas.
This one is about procedural problems.
SARAH LLOYD JONES & OTHERS
- and ?
T MOBILE (UK) Ltd
Example of an appeal letter:
Thurrock Borough Council v. Orange
Regarding the Faraday fence, the mobile company might sue you for
preventing them to use their equipment if you put up a blocking
device. I do not know if you would have a case, you would need to ask
I do not think it is possible for you to build a decent blocking
device. To block electromagnetic radiation, you would need a cage.
There are companies that sell this sort of equipment, but I can
imagine the price behind prohibitive.
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC SHIELD CASE STUDIES
PLANNING SANITY PHONE MAST FORUM (includes links to legal cases)
Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (Stewart Report)
Mast Sanity (Advice Line 08704 322 377 Tue-Fri 1-8pm national rate )
Mobile Telephony and Health
Mobile Phones: Jargon Explained
Exposures from Base Stations
Telecommunications mast development: consultation paper
Mobile phone masts: government response to committee report
Cancer risk trebles near mobile phone masts
General mast news
microcell mast power
mast mobile uk permission