Address:
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
___ ________ 2001
Head of Planning Services
Rochford District Council
Council Offices
South Street
Rochford
Essex SS4 1BW
Your ref: 01/00829/DPDP24
Dear Sirs,
Application No:
01/00829/DPDP24
Site Location:
Lower Wyburns Farm, 204 Daws Heath Road, Rayleigh, Essex
Proposal: Determination
as to Whether Prior Approval Required with Regard to Siting and
Appearance of Telecommunications
Equipment: Namely, 15m Monopole, 3
Antannae, 4 x 0.6m Dishes and Equipment Cabinets within Fenced Compound.
Please find detailed below observations and official objections to the proposed development above.
Observations and
Objections put forward:
I write in objection to the proposed erection of a telecommunication mast and ancillary building on land situate at Lower Wyburns Farm, 204 Daws Heath Road, Rayleigh .
The siting and design of the proposed mast will detract from, and adversely affect the amenity of the locality. I urge the local authority to invoke your powers under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. I am sure the committee will agree that it would be expedient in order to protect the amenity of the locality, and for the good planning of the area, that an Article 4 order should be made.
As you will be aware, there are a large number of conflicting academic reports on the dangers of irradiation emitted from base stations. With this in mind I urge you to follow the recommendation of the Stewart Report, and adopt a precautionary approach (see para 1.21 and 6.16 of that report) in deciding applications for telecommunication base stations. This approach as you will be aware is enshrined within national planning policy structure of the UK, as well as European legislation (Please refer to the Government White Paper “This Common Inheritance”, PPG23 “Planning and Pollution Control” and “Sustainable Development – the UK Strategy”, as well as being enshrined in the Treaty of European Union (Maastricht, 1992; in force from 1.11.93) – Title XVI: Environment, Article 130r):
Article 130r
“1) Community
policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following
objectives:
·
preserving,
protecting and improving the quality of the environment;
·
protecting human
health;
·
prudent and
rational utilisation of natural resources;
·
Promoting measures at
international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems.
2) Community policy
on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account
the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community.
It shall be based on the precautionary principles that preventative
action should be taken, that environmental damage should be rectified
at source and that the polluter should pay… (p39)”
The Stewart Report states at para 1.19:
We conclude therefore that it is not possible at present to say that
exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally
without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are
sufficient to justify a precautionary approach’.
I am very concerned that the biological affects and irradiation emitted
from the proposed development will affect not only my own health but that of my
family, and those visiting my home. As such I urge you to use the power
conferred upon you by para 29 of PPG8 and attach considerable weight to the fear
that the majority of local residents have.
The Stewart Report recommends that exclusion zones are placed around all base stations, and indeed some countries already have exclusion zones. This recommendation clearly indicates that there is a potential for concern in placing masts close to sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals and residential areas. In the immediate vicinity of the proposed site is a Wyburns Primary School (the beam of greatest intensity falling directly into the school grounds), Little Havens Hospice for terminally ill children (within 500m), as well as domestic dwellings.
Exclusion Zones
(1.44)
We recommend the establishment of clearly defined physical exclusion
zones around base station antennas, which delineate areas within which exposure
guidelines may be exceeded (paragraph 6.49 – 6.52). The incorporation of
exclusion zones should be part of the template of planning protocols that we
advocate.
Physical Barriers
(1.45)
Each exclusion zone should be defined by a physical barrier and a
readily identifiable nationally agreed sign with a logo. This should inform the
public and workers that inside the exclusion zone there might be RF emissions,
which exceed national guidelines.
The government recommends that local authorities do not take health effects into consideration, however many local authorities are rejecting these recommendations including Kent County Council, which refuses to endorse consents on any council land, due to their concerns over health. I would also draw your attention to the case pending before the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of a base station on the question of the LPA failing to take into account the health aspects of masts (R v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Smith). Should this application be decided in favour of the Claimant then question marks will be put over all masts where the health issues were not taken into account.
However, even if a rejection of the arguments relating to the precautionary approach is taken by the planning committee, we would urge you to consider the effect the size and design of this mast will have on the amenity of the local area, towering as it will some 45 ft into the air, which will contrast with the open aspect of the locality. PPG8 makes it clear that a rejection of permitted development permission is acceptable for base stations should the LPA conclude that it would have an adverse effect on the amenity of the area. I also take this opportunity to draw your attention to the factors listed in PPG8 Annex 1 para 13 that may involve siting:
·
the height of the site in
relation to surrounding land;
·
the existence of
topographical features and natural vegetation;
·
the effect on the skyline or
horizon;
·
the site when observed from
any side, including from outside the authority’s own area;
·
the site in relation to
areas designated locally for their scenic or conservation value;
·
the site in relation to
existing masts, structures or buildings, including buildings of a historical or
traditional character;
·
the site in relation to
residential property; and
·
any other relevant
considerations.
Masts
should NOT be erected in the Greenbelt unless there is strong justification.
PPG8
para 17:- “In Green Belts, telecommunication development is unlikely to be
appropriate unless it maintains openness. Inappropriate development may proceed
only if very special circumstances
are demonstrated which outweigh the degree of harm to the Green Belt.”
PPG8, Appendix Para. 9 states that publicity for prior approval should be the same as that for planning permission –
1.
Objection – The location of the Notice on the Southend Bound track
of the A127 Arterial Road, Rayleigh was restricted to members of the public in
so far as it was placed on an area of isolated highway verge unconnected to
other footway routes in the area. No crossing facility exists (either controlled
or uncontrolled) to enable ready access to be gained, as no dropped kerbs are
evident for this purpose. This directly discriminates against mobility or
visually impaired users due to this fact, hence contravening the Disability
Discrimination Act.
2.
Objection – The site notice was situated in an inaccessible and
hazardous location. In accordance with the point mentioned above, the chosen
site notice location required interested parties to negotiate and cross one of
the busiest arterial routes in the District in order to access and view the
notice, putting their health and safety in severe jeopardy in doing so. This
clearly demonstrates the applicant’s lack
of duty of care under the Health and Safety and Welfare at Work Act.
3.
Objection – The site notice
was not visible. With most residents
working during daylight hours at this time of year, I would seriously question
that the notice was visible at all? If people cannot see the site notice, they
are effectively disempowered of the right to the agreed consultation process.
4.
Objection – That no one
should have their health placed at risk when clear, unequivocal concerns have
been raised by nationally appointed health bodies on the long term health
effects of constant bombardment by microwave radiation. This technology has
not yet been proved as safe. I (and the majority of my neighbours) have
deep-seated concerns and worries regarding mobile masts and their perceived
detrimental effect on health grounds. Current research on this matter has merely
concentrated on the effects of tissue
heating only from microwave emitting antenna. There is, however, a large
body of scientific research that now challenges this view with regard to other
possible symptoms such as increased cancer risk, sterility, effects on heart
pacemakers. In relation to the
concerns regarding pacemakers, I would point out that within 10metres of the
proposed site is the A127 Arterial Road. This
road at peak times is congested with traffic at a standstill. The warning notice affixed to the base station would not be
visible to anyone, let alone anyone fitted with a pacemaker, thereby putting his
or her lives in jeopardy.
5.
Objection – That the
“precautionary principle” recommended in the Government commissioned Stewart Report for the IEGMP
(May 2000), which calls for a cessation in the erection of masts close to
people until more was known about the possible health effects of masts, appears
to have been ignored. Wyburns
Primary School is within 500m of the proposed site, the beam of greatest
intensity falls into the grounds at 362m from the proposed site, Little Havens
Children’s Hospice is approximately 474m from the site.
6.
Objection – that no pre-application discussions with residential
groups, as set out in PPG8 Para 9 were
carried out. This can be
verified by Wyburns School, Little Havens Children’s Hospice and residents.
7.
Objection –I note that the PPG8 Appendix para 64 states that masts
are a particular height which allows signals to clear trees and urban clutter
(houses?) and that Telecommunications development may need particular locations
in order to work effectively. However, it also states that these prominent
locations may be exactly the locations that would pose challenges to policies
for the protection of high quality landscapes and quality
in urban areas. This is an alteration to the previous advise that had the
specific height of 20 metres, that being the case it suggests, therefore that
masts below 20m in height cannot achieve satisfactory performance due to the
proximity of this urban clutter – a 15m high mast would therefore appear
wholly useless, unless a high powered emitter was installed to regain this
shortfall. Is it then the case that local
residents should be ‘slow cooked’ as they sleep in their beds, as this is
what microwaves do, after all? I, for one, consider the Daws Heath Road, and
Whitehouse area to be a quality urban area of local amenity.
8.
Objection – That no consideration (or more importantly, evidence)
appears apparent that the operators ever considered mast sharing or sharing an
existing site in the area as an alternative to developing this amenity as a new
mast site. The Government has attached considerable importance to mast sharing
in keeping the numbers of sites and installations to a minimum
PPG 8, Para. 19 to 23. Conditions in code operators’ licences require
applicants to explore the possibility of site or mast sharing in the first
instance – this evidence should accompany any application made to the local
planning authority whether a prior approval application under Part 24 of the
GPDO or an application for planning permission under the T&CPA 1990 . Other
telecommunication operators (One to One,, Vodafone, BT Cellnet) cannot
refuse this request unless there is a demonstrable reason why not, as the
Director General of OFTEL has powers to force shared use for this very reason.
If not mast sharing, operators are at least encouraged to site new masts
alongside existing ones on sites already deemed suitable for this purpose. It
is not apparent from any correspondence or information available for viewing at
the Council Offices that mast sharing was ever considered.
9.
Objection – That the legal precedent resultant from the recent case
of Newport Borough Council vs. Secretary of State of Wales (1998) JPL 337 has
not been observed during this permitted rights application. A ruling was upheld
during that case that “genuine public fear and concern, even if that fear is
irrational and not based upon evidence, is material planning consideration”.
10. Objection
– that the proposed mast will be an eyesore and that the proposal would
have a detrimental effect on the locality generally, and on amenities that
ought, in the public interest, to be protected. No consideration, or
insufficient consideration has been given to Article
4 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
as to the adverse effect the proposal will have on the amenity of the area, or
indeed this particular site.
11. Objection
– That the proposed development in no way benefits the local community.
Mobile ‘phone coverage is more than adequate in this area – the new mast is
simply a commercial venture by Orange in order to ‘capture’ a wider area of
the District away from its competitors.
12. Objection
– That the proposed development is out of character with the local area. A
mast with little or no screening is not going to blend in at all with the local
area, so ensuring further detriment.
13. Objection
– That with the expected future concerns on mobile ‘phone mast safety
being similar to those recently raised regarding overhead power lines and
television broadcast antennae, private property values will plummet in areas
where masts have been erected in or near to residential properties. It is
interesting to note that US and other European countries stipulate a minimum
exclusion zone of 500m from mast sites to the vulnerable. The Stewart Report
also recommends such exclusion zones Paras
1.44-1.48 Stewart Report.
14. Objection
– That the Council Planning Authority will not allow objections on health
consideration and public concern highlighted by the Stewart Report for the IEGMP
(May 2000) and by PPG 8 Guidelines currently available.
We had a choice when faced with concern over CJD and BSE, we have no
choice to avoid the effects of this proposal if approved.
15. Objection
– That the development may have significant and irremediable interference
with other electrical equipment of any kind. This can be material planning
consideration according to PPG 8,
Appendix Para. 102.
16. Objection
– That the development will cause widespread physical interference and
disruption to existing television and other telecommunication services due to
the physical obstruction or reflection of the wanted signals. Local Authorities
need to have taken into account that the potential for interference has been
fully considered in the siting and design of this development, as it would be
impossible to correct this situation after the site becomes operational. This
also can be material planning consideration according to PPG 8, Para. 33.
17. Objection
– That co-ordination with the Radiocommunication Agency or other concerned
parties, as contained in PPG 8, Appendix
Para. 103 has not been undertaken so as to ensure that the potential for
either type of interference mentioned above does not occur.
18. Objection
– That the proximity of the development to residential property will be
invasive and intrusive. And thereby affect the amenity of the area. The site is
inappropriate. As is the proposed design for this location.
I urge you to consider the effect the size and design of this mast will have
on the amenity of the local area, towering as it will some 45 ft into the air,
which will contrast with the open aspect of the locality. PPG8 makes it clear
that a rejection of permitted development permission is acceptable for base
stations should the LPA conclude that it would have an adverse effect on the
amenity of the area. I also take this opportunity to draw your attention to the
factors listed in PPG8 Annex 1para 13 that
may involve siting:
·
the height of the site in
relation to surrounding land;
·
the existence of
topographical features and natural vegetation;
·
the effect on the skyline or
horizon;
·
the site when observed from
any side, including from outside the authority's own area;
·
the site in relation to
areas designated locally for their scenic or conservation value;
·
the site in relation to
existing masts, structures or buildings, including buildings of a historical or
traditional character;
·
Objection – The mast
has the potential to destroy, or at the very least adversely affect local
wildlife. Especially
in so far of its close proximity to the densely planted Woodland Trust which is
immediately next the proposed site, as well as wildlife which habitat is that of
the Rayleigh Horticultural Society.
· Conditions in code operators’ licences require applicants to explore the possibility of site or mast sharing in the first instance – this evidence should accompany any application made to the local planning authority whether a prior approval application under Part 24 of the GPDO or an application for planning permission under the T&CPA 1990
Could you therefore supply me
with the evidence accompanying this application in relation to the above point,
which clearly should have been submitted, with the application?
There is as you will be aware an obligation contained within PPG8 for operators to hold talks with local authorities, and recommendations that these discussions should also include other organisations such as local residents groups.
Could you therefore supply me with information relating to these meetings, in particular the out come of the obligatory talks that the local authority held with the Operator, along with details of any residents groups who took part, or were invited to take part in these discussions?
I look forward to your official response to the points raised above, before the cut-off date mentioned previously is reached – please do not allow a lack of response on the Council’s behalf to be responsible for this irresponsible development proceeding by default.
Whilst reserving the right to make further representation on this application, I urge you to refuse permission for the above reasons.
Observation – Under current legislation, including
the aforementioned relevant Health & Safety Guidelines and the European
Human Rights Act, there is already the very real potential for individual
litigation processes to be instigated against Local Authorities, corporate
bodies or individuals involved in any way in the approval, erection and
operation of apparatus proposed in this and similar applications. It is
therefore advised that you seriously consider investigating the legality and
consequences, whether current or future, of your involvement in any approval of
this and other similar applications in this District.
Yours faithfully,
Signature: ________________
Name (print): ________________
Tel:
(Daytime) ____________, (Evening) ______________