Letter of objection to planning application.
sent to Harrogate Borough Council planning dept.
19th Nov. 2000
Planning application 6.100.969.B.FUL
Church Of The Holy Trinity
Dear Sir or Madam,
Impact on conservation area
The Church Of The Holy Trinity may not be as old as many other parts of Knaresborough, but is surely a part of our Heritage. It is a prominent landmark visible for miles and when approaching Knaresborough from the East South or West the sight lets you know you are nearly home.
Once one telecommunications
operator is allowed to start replacing parts of the spire with plastic then there could be little argument against allowing all the other telecommunications operators to follow suite so that they could all profit equally from
our heritage. Replacing the middle section of the spire with a large plastic sphere would probably provide sufficient room for all operators antennas!
There is no reason why a telecommunications mast or base station must be placed here, it is just cheaper and more profitable for the operator who would otherwise need to put up two or more at lower lying sites. As there plenty of alternative sites outside the conservation area then why allow something detrimental to conservation.
Wildlife issues
Often many bats can be seen feeding around the Church. The open stone louvers on the spire are just the type of entrance that bats like using, i.e. where they can land on an outside surface then climb inside, and the stored heat in the stone would provide the warmth bats need for a sleeping or breeding site. As bats are a protected species a proper survey of their use of the spire should be done before any work is commenced.
At night Tawny owls often call for hours from the trees around the church. The branches are close to the spire and high enough to be directly in line with the primary transmitted beam(s). In a microwave oven the time taken to cook food is proportional to its weight. As telecomm workers must not go within 5 metres of the transmitter aerials then an animal 1/100th the weight would not be safe within 50 metres of the aerial.
Public health
The problem as perceived by large sections of the public is whether long-term chronic exposure to the low intensity radiation from Mast and Ground Base Station facilities is indeed now safe. Bearing in mind that the assurances about the safety of the mobiles themselves when used close to the brain seem now to be somewhat suspect, the question arises as to whether similar assurances relating to the safety of living close to a Ground Based Station and Mast are also realistic.
Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. The current safety standards only limit transmitted power to levels below that which would cause heating. These standards only came into effect 50 years after the problem first became apparent – 2nd World War RADAR crews suffered cataracts and tumours. At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., field intensities lower than those that would produce significant and measurable heating, the possibility of "non-thermal" biological effects exists. Whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known. Further research is ongoing, in the meantime, standards-setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether alterations in safety limits are needed in order to protect human health.
Planning authorities should be guided by the fact that European Union Treaties advocated the Precautionary Principle (1993 Maastricht) to safeguard the public's health. Governments are not there to be led by the Industry in pursuit of progress and financial gain at the expense of the public at large. Governments are there to be able to interpret properly scientific guidance or advice.
In this country mobile phone masts have now been banned from school sites. The Education Secretary (UK) has told schools to limit mobile phone use by children (up to 16 years old) and to make sure that mobile phone masts nearby do not send a "beam of greatest intensity" across their land. Children live in the houses around the church, spending many more hours here than at school and therefore need more protection.
This proliferation of Network Masts may turn out to be the next BSE for ignoring the warnings and acting without any common sense or prudent avoidance.
What does prudent avoidance, preventative action, precautionary approach mean in practice? No-one wants to prevent the advance of telecommunications. However, common sense needs to prevail over the economics of the Industry’s proliferation. There is no need these days to place Telecommunications Masts and Base Stations too close to permanently occupied residences and children’s schools. The only reason that Masts are placed too close is because it is cheaper.
There is absolutely no reason why a properly erected and located mast should be closer than a minimum of 200 to 250 metres from any inhabited property. Unfortunately the Industry ignores the obvious because it is easier and cheaper.
Close to the base of the antenna site, the power density may be greater at elevations above the base of the antenna site (for example, at the second floor of a building) but the mobile phone operator must still ensure that the general public exposure limits are not exceeded.
The power densities on the ground should generally be less than 1% of the general public exposure limits. What are the limits for elevated buildings nearby ?
Our house is near the spire and has a 2nd floor room. What power density is planned at this height, will it be checked and is there anything to stop the operator increasing power at a later date. Should a fault or damage alter the beam direction how long would it be before this was even detected let alone rectified.
Property values.
What if the plan is approved and then at some later date research proves the installation hazardous but allowable. Surrounding properties would become un-marketable either because of peoples fears or because mortgages would not be given due to the hazard, e.g. as is the case with overhead electricity grid lines.
I would not choose to live in a house under overhead grid wires or in one right next to a phone base station transmitter. I know that even without new medical evidence our property would become less marketable.
In conclusion, we are sure the installation would meet current health regulations – our concern is that it is not yet proved that these regulations are adequate. Already other countries are starting to introduce more stringent regulations. Is Harrogate Borough Council prepared to face future recriminations for their failure to safeguard the public's health.
Yours faithfully,
