I have had many postings on this subject:
August 17th 2004
February 2005
Press Release
The weight of opinion against this phone mast has made the phone company decide not to proceed with the erection of the mast. They state:
Clearly they leave the door slightly ajar with their final sentence and we must remain vigilant to them finding another site, still, it proves they can be stopped. If only the Lib Dems had not granted the planning applicatioon over the Raeburn Avenue site we might have had time to fight it and stop it. I gather the Lib Dem Cllrs for Alexandra Ward were there this morning with the phone company measuring the current strength of radio waves before it is installed shortly."Following our comprehensive pre application consultation procedure you are obviously aware that Hutchison 3G were looking at a proposal on the Chiltern Drive in Berrylands in Surbiton. We have looked at many options both technical and geographical to find a solution to this very difficult area for us.
I have received many letters, emails and telephone calls regarding this proposal which has obviously raised concern. As we stated this was only a pre application consultation process and we had not applied for planning permission, despite the rumour mill to the contrary.
Our current position is that we are not going to proceed with this site at this time. We still have a requirement for coverage in this area and will need to look at a solution sometime in the future. We have decided to place all progress on hold."
2 comments:
I am a resident in Berrylands.
I have been disgusted at this telephone mast fear campaign that has been set up in the Berrylands area. Some of these posters residents have been putting in their windows say "Mircrowave Danger!" What an unintelligent slogan.
I understand that these masts will cause eye sores in a small limited areas and the people who live near these areas should obviously have a right to object to the visual pollution. I also understand that the masts MAY pose a danger to younger children who are still developing, but not adults.
I think it is wrong that so many people have put up these notices without understanding them.
I am an asthmatic and I have seen many houses with large cars and 4x4s that have these "Microwave Danger!" posters. These sorts of vehicles create a far larger danger to bothe the human and natural environment, by emitting massive amounts of particulates and other carcinogenic materials into the atmosphere which young children who cycle and walk down these roads in Berrylands are forced to breathe. I find this highly hypocritical that people are willing to drive and understand the pollution that they are creating yet they worry about mobile phone masts which will not affect them at all.
Here are some links discussing the relative danger of mobile phone masts, 3G ones in particular and the technology behind them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4196762.stm
http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39117784,00.htm
http://www.orange.co.uk/transmittermasts/print.html
Thanks for this post.
The posters are from a residents group set up to fight the original phone mast application in Raeburn Avenue. There is a link to the residents website on the right hand toolbar of this blog.
I hear what you say but peoples fears are real to themselves. For as long as we have no definitive evidence that mobile phone masts are safe the these fears will continue. Some have argued that it is hypocritical for residents to campaign against phone masts when they themselves use mobile phones. However, that is not acceptable. The mboile phone coverage in this area is just fine. The reason for the need for new masts is because of the new 3G technology so that people can download video to their phone.
The Government sold off the 3G licenses for billions of pounds so have no interest in limiting the installation, so it is left to local residents to object.
As I think the victory in Chiltern Drive proved the mobile phone company did not need to put a mast in Chiltern Drive and now need to reconsider wher it should go, if they need it at all (which also appears to be under review.)
Post a Comment