Today we received a 'pre-application consultation' letter stating we
have one week to object to a telephone mast being sited against our
boundary wall and about 10m from the wall of our home. Due to
circumstances at home I do not have the time to research what
opposition arguments may prove successful in an objection.

We live in Guildford, Surrey and the mast is required due to notice
being given that the existing mast on DEFRA government property must
be re-sited. The new mast will be 8m high and will abut our garden
wall.

Our property is 3 stories with bedrooms at mast height on the 1st and
2nd floors. The mast is an 8m high microcell emitting 9w/m2.

I have always scorned NIMBY's but I have a genuine and sincere concern
about my family be subjected to living and sleeping so close to a
mast. I understand that perceived health risks are not generally
considered in planning applications where the guidance on risks comes
from the government.

I do believe such masts are necessary but feel that they should be
sited where exposure is temporary rather than continuous. i.e. away
from homes since there is undoubtedly a  significant risk which has
not yet been proved.

My second concern is that there is such a widely held belief that
there are risks associated with masts, therefore such an obvious mast
on the border of our property 10m from the house will have a very
significant effect on the resale value of our property. My property is
my main source of retirement pension.

I am looking for concise information with references to successful
objections and the grounds that they were based on, along with any
other supporting evidence to contribute to my case. A draft of the
letter I should submit would also be valued.

A good tip will be forthcoming if the information provided enables me
to avert the installation of the mast.

---

Request for Question Clarification by endo-ga on 29 Nov 2004 15:11 PST

Hi,

Is this a mobile telephone mast or a regular phone mast?

Thanks.
endo

---

Request for Question Clarification by endo-ga on 29 Nov 2004 21:11 PST

Nevermind, I've just reread your post and noticed you mentionned it's a microcell.

After some preliminary research, I don't think you'll get anywhere
without a mass mobilisation of protestors. I'll post some links later
today.

Thanks.
endo

---

Clarification of Question by swill-ga on 30 Nov 2004 00:00 PST

As you realised it is a Cell phone mast otherwise I would not have any
health concerns and would not be objecting. The chances of getting
together a mass protest are zilch. I am looking for as persuasive a
response as possible based on other succesful cases in the UK,
preferable in Surrey and Guildford, thanks.

---

Request for Question Clarification by endo-ga on 30 Nov 2004 13:27 PST

Hi,

I've done more research, and it looks pretty bleak.

I've found some court cases, but most of them relate to procedural
problems, including one in Surrey.

One week is ridiculous, because the planning approval people have 56
days to reject an application to erect a mast. There might be a
procedural objection there against the council for informing you on
short notice.

Anyways, I'll try and summarise the information I've found, but I
haven't found any successful cases without mass protests.

I doubt that the information I provide you with would be enough to
prevent the mast being installed, but I'll find whatever I can. Would
that be a satisfactory answer?

Thanks.
endo

---

Clarification of Question by swill-ga on 30 Nov 2004 14:55 PST

Endo,
Thanks for the work you have put in so far. To clarify I have received
a letter from Waldon Telecom and they call the letter a 'Pre-Planning
Application Consultation'. ie. I guess they recommend one of several
sites to Orange based on the likelyhood of the site being approved
once the planning application is made.
They list a whole load of sites and alongside each they state the
reason why it has not been choosen. I can send you a copy of their
several page letter if this helps. They imply the choice is now down
to my home or a local school playing field.
The types of reason given for not choosing the other options are
'owners declined OPCS's proposal', Masts would need to be too high,
and for increasing the existing masts, ground space being inadiquate
is given in 2 or 3 cases. It looks as though my location is a last
choice and has been chosen pretty much at random due to there being
reasonable pavement space available.
Thay state I have 14 days to respond from the date of the letter but I
didn't recive it until 5 days later. They also quote the post code for
the installation incorrectly - thereby meaning that the 20 or so
people sent the letter may assume it is located elsewhere.
Anyway I am sure you have worked hard on your reaserch and to be fair
I will accept whatever you are able to offer.

---

Clarification of Question by swill-ga on 30 Nov 2004 15:12 PST

It has occurred to me that I could construct a 'Faraday Fence' 8m high
on my property immediately adjacent to the mast so as to shield my
home.
I am sure that this would cause planning problems but a) what would
the mesh size need to be b) it would be hard for the planning
autorities to object since they allowed an 8m nast in the same place,
c) I would have thought I could take any case to the EU human rights
court with the defence I am protecting myself and my family.

---

Request for Question Clarification by endo-ga on 30 Nov 2004 15:24 PST

Hi,

There are cases still going on, I've found news articles from the last few days.

It appears there is little to no chance, unless it doesn't meet safety
standards or there have been procedural mistakes. Perceived danger is
not a good enough defence.

I'll collate everything I have and post that as an answer in a bit.

I'm assuming you're allowed to build a fence in your own garden? I'll
have a look into the technical details of that as well.

Thanks.
endo

Hi,

I?ve grouped the information into different sections.
For each link, I?ve included a title and a snippet showing the
relevant information.

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
detail?


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
public concern?.

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
more information.

Thanks.
endo


Successes in opposing mast permissions:

Mobile phone mast plan scrapped (26th October 2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/3954027.stm

Phone company Hutchinson 3G withdrew their application to erect the
mast following opposition from local residents.


Switch off mast, council orders (20th November 2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4027969.stm

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
majority.
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)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/3743162.stm

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
support.


Phone company told to remove mast (5th October 2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3715640.stm

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
six-day vigil.


Success due to procedural problems. This case is interesting because
it seems that it is one of the few involving an individual rather than
a group.


Jodie Philips 
Vs
3G HUTCHISON LIMITED
http://fp.bouncynation.plus.com/hilltops%20web2/PhillipsDecision-1003.pdf

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
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19230

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.


Failures:

Phone mast 'test case' rejected (13th November 2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4007661.stm

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)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/3757778.stm

A group of parents fighting plans for a 25-metre mobile phone mast
near three schools in Harrogate have taken their fight to Downing
Street.
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
public.
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)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3700496.stm

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
children.


T-MOBILE (UK) LTD & OTHERS v FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE (12th November 2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/lawreports/lawreps01.xml&sSheet=/news/lawreports/ixnlaw.html

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.


Ongoing cases:

Hundreds sign phone mast petition (30th November 2004) 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/4054513.stm

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
years ago.
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.


Possible actions:

1. Case for procedural challenge: incorrect postcode.

Possible consequences:
- 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
distances.

Could delay installation, but unlikely to prevent it completely.

2. File complaints using the following model and using the council?s
previous concerns.

http://www.guildford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C81F58F4-B76E-4FFC-AF62-BB99CE74691C/5080/Item3PlanningApplications21104.pdf

Look at pages 28 to 34 for reasons that could be raised to the council
(is this the same mast?).


Main document:

Telecommunications SPG
http://www.guildford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/58BC2C30-14A9-4061-BFC7-98B8366F30C9/1657/Item11Annex7704.pdf

Page numbers are PDF pages, rather than document pages.

Page 5:
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.

Page 7:
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.

Page 7:
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.


Page 8:

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
DAMAGE;

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
ENVIRONMENT.

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.


Page 10:

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
Guide 2002):

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).


Page 11:
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.

Page 11:
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
Design Statement).

Page 13:
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;
Sites within an existing group of trees of mature woodland;
The use of modern slimline or monopole designs; and
The use of appropriate colouring.


Page 17:
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.

Page 18:
Some contact details for further discussion, you might already have
these on the application.


Supporting document:

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS
http://www.guildford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/58BC2C30-14A9-4061-BFC7-98B8366F30C9/1656/Item11TelecommunicationsSPG7704.pdf

Page 2:
No-Go Areas (a) Not within 500 metres of schools, homes and
workplaces. (b) Not in Conservation Areas. (c) Not in protected areas.



Legal cases:

This one is about procedural problems.

SARAH LLOYD JONES & OTHERS
- and ?
T MOBILE (UK) Ltd
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1162.html


Example of an appeal letter:

Thurrock Borough Council v. Orange
http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/forums/legal/judgment/reports/ocken.htm



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
a solicitor.
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.

EMF Shielding
http://www.emfshielding.com/services_index.htm

Wall shielding
http://www.magnetic-shield.com/products/shielding.html

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC SHIELD CASE STUDIES
http://www.magnetic-shield.com/histories/21005.html
http://www.magnetic-shield.com/histories/19805.html
http://www.magnetic-shield.com/histories/20763.html


Useful links:

PLANNING SANITY PHONE MAST FORUM (includes links to legal cases)
http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/forums/masts/telemast.htm

Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (Stewart Report)
http://www.iegmp.org.uk/
Mast Sanity (Advice Line 08704 322 377 Tue-Fri 1-8pm national rate )

http://www.mastsanity.org/actions/legal.htm

Mobile Telephony and Health
http://www.nrpb.org/press/information_sheets/mobile_telephony/limiting_exposures.htm

Mobile Phones: Jargon Explained
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/topics/mpsafety/school-audit/jargon.htm

Exposures from Base Stations
http://www.nrpb.org/press/information_sheets/mobile_telephony/base_stations.htm

Telecommunications mast development: consultation paper
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_605929-03.hcsp

Mobile phone masts: government response to committee report
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_606147.hcsp

Cancer risk trebles near mobile phone masts
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041118_naila.asp

General mast news
http://freespace.virgin.net/mast.action/latnew.htm




Search Strategy

mast site:guildford.gov.uk
://www.google.com/search?q=mast+site%3Aguildford.gov.uk

microcell mast power
://www.google.com/search?q=microcell+mast+power

mast mobile uk permission
://www.google.com/search?q=mast+mobile+uk+permission

---

Clarification of Answer by endo-ga on 30 Nov 2004 18:14 PST

Some more links:

Residents 'lose phone mast fight'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3653584.stm

Residents who campaigned against a mobile phone mast near their homes
may have lost their battle after talks over siting it elsewhere broke
down.



This group seems helpful:


Mast Action UK
http://www.mastaction.co.uk/Front%20Page.htm

Mast Action UK (MAUK)  is a voluntary national organisation. Launched
in the House of Commons in December 2000. The campaign was set up to
help communities and individuals with mast siting problems.

Mast Action UK, the national membership group leading the campaign for
the sensible siting of mobile phone masts, today launched a
groundbreaking service for residents living in close proximity to
installations. It offers residents practical legal assistance in their
ongoing concerns with property owners who permit and profit from the
insensitive erection of masts and base stations on their property.

With the link between the operations of telecommunications masts and
any facet of the health of a person living in close proximity to masts
still awaiting scientific confirmation, MAUK has had prepared by
Counsel a letter for use by local residents wishing to notify property
owners that should a link be proven by scientific evidence then they
may be liable for compensatory claims.



Thanks.
endo

---

Request for Answer Clarification by swill-ga on 01 Dec 2004 11:47 PST

Endo,
many thanks for the obviuosly intensive research you have done. I
would like to study it before I rate your answer, which incidentally I
will definately be accepting.
Sadly my father-in-law who lives with us is very close to death, and
this is our current pre-occupation in any spare time we have - hence
my outsourcing the research. Please allow me a few days to absorb your
findings so that I can give a fair rating.
I would be grateful if you could find out what mesh size would act as
an effective faraday cage for the type of radiation these masts emmit.
I will certainly risk beind sued to persue this route,  I will be
determined in taking this a long way through the courts as I do
perceive a genuine risk for my family.

---

Clarification of Answer by endo-ga on 01 Dec 2004 12:13 PST

I'm very sorry to hear about your father-in-law.

I've found very little research concerning home-made jamming devices,
most are for industrial purpose. I'll have another look.

If you have a look at the last clarification and the last link I
posted, there's some direct help available, also Mast Sanity has an
Advice Line on 08704 322 377 Tue-Fri 1-8pm national rate.

Please let me know if I can assist any further.

Thanks.
endo

---

Request for Answer Clarification by swill-ga on 01 Dec 2004 13:21 PST

Endo Thanks,
I must re-iterate I have no interest in Jamming, which I take to mean
emitting an opposing signal. My only interest is in blocking over the
area which would penetrate our home

---

Clarification of Answer by endo-ga on 01 Dec 2004 15:42 PST

Sorry, that's what I meant.

I asked an electric engineer and he doubts that a home-made Faraday
cage would work well, and that a solid metal wall thats grounded would
be much more effective and easier to make too.

You could also try renting a spectrum analyser or get someone to use
it for you, set up a non-directional antenna, and measure the strength
of the field in various areas near your house and see how it compares
to what your phone emits during normal operation.

I'm still looking for instructions on building a home-made Faraday cage.

Thanks.
endo

---

Clarification of Answer by endo-ga on 01 Dec 2004 16:20 PST

Hi,

The diameter of each hole in the mesh needs to be less than the
wavelength of the radiation. I believe the highest frequency (smallest
wavelength) is 1900MHz for mobile phones, that means a wavelength of
15.8cm. Therefore the diameter of the holes need to be less than that.

The cage needs to be earthed or it won't work at all.

I believe the best option is to look into the shielding of your house.
Using something like this:

MAGNETIC SHIELDING FOIL ("MuMetal")
http://www.lessemf.com/mag-shld.html

or one of these products:

Wall shielding
http://www.magnetic-shield.com/products/shielding.html

Marktec
http://www.marktek-inc.com/products.htm

This looks promising:

High-performance Shielding fabric Aaronia-ShieldŽ 50dB attenuation
(Prices in Euros)
http://home.t-online.de/home/electrosmog.com/Shielding.htm

They also have devices for measuring radiation, which aren't too expensive.


I hope you'll find the above information useful.

Thanks.
endo

Endo has carried out a very thorough and complete set of research
based on my requirements. If the research proves to contribute to a
refusal of planning permission then a tip will come later. Thanks
Endo.

Thanks for the great rating, I wish you the best of luck!
endo