Local …….. school is in the shadow of the proposed telecommunication mast now before local planners, whilst local residents fume at the prospect of the health threatening giant being erected opposite a large residential area.

It would appear from the information available to CfPS that the application is to be delegated to an officer rather than be decided by the planning committee, despite recommendations at the highest level that masts should not be erected in the proximity of schools and other sensitive locations (see footnote 1), and that applications involving sensitive locations should in any event be looked at from the ‘precautionary principle’ (see footnote 2), thereby ensuring that proper controls on the erection of masts is undertaken until such time as the health effects of masts is conclusively known,

Chris Maile for CfPS said "It is not known what if any health effects masts have, therefore the precautionary principle should be applied, with the outright rejection of any applications for the erection of masts close to sensitive locations such as schools. The developing nature of children ensures that they are more susceptible to the biological effects of radio emissions that adults, and therefore need greater protection".

Nick Raynsford for the Secretary of State in a Commons answer (Hansard Written Answers for 27^th Nov 1997) makes it clear that local authorities can reject applications for masts on the basis of the affect on the amenity of the local community. Every aspect of this application points to the need and ability of the planning authority to reject this application, and to make it clear to operators that they will not entertain application for masts in sensitive locations. The amenity value to local residents in this context is the sheer size of the proposed masts, as well as the right not to have a potential health threatening construction close to a school and residential properties.

Alan Meyer (Barrister) has warned of the potential for litigation against land owners and local authorities who permit masts to be erected should a BSE (or tobacco) health risk be established. Therefore all involved in granting permission for masts in sensitive locations should be aware of the risks they run possibly some years down the line. This should be of particular concern to the local authority in granting permission for a construction that at the outset they are being warned has the potential to be detrimental to the health of the local community.

EDITORS NOTE: CfPS (Campaign for Planning Sanity) is an advisory campaign for local communities objecting to adverse planning and development applications Tel: 0161 959 0999.

FOOTNOTE:

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)"