![]() |
|
![]() |
| Vincent Cable | 4th December 2008 | <info@vincentcable.org.uk> |
Whitton Schools Uproar over Phone Masts1.33.52pm UTC (GMT +0000) Mon 27th Oct 2003
A year after a controversial Whitton telecoms mast was the subject of a debate in parliament, initiated by MP Vincent Cable, there is again strong opposition to a new mast on the same site (on the roof of the Whitton telephone exchange, overlooking the playground of St Edmunds primary school and close to Nelson primary). On Thursday a group of residents and school parents, accompanied by Vincent Cable, handed in a petition to the council of close to 700 names protesting against the mast and asking the council to refuse permission. Vincent Cable said: "We have an absolutely ludicrous position where phone masts are being turned down in conservation areas because of their aesthetic impact but opposed close to schools and residential areas where there is public anxiety over health impacts." "There is no proof of a health risk but the scientific evidence is inconclusive and common sense suggests that there is need to be prudent and to avoid sites where there is intense anxiety particularly over children's exposure." "The court ruling last week, where a judge upheld the objections of a pregnant mother over a mast site nearby, may shift the balance for debate". "Those of us who supported the petition objecting to the mast recognise that the council is constrained in what it can do by government planning guidance. But it could be braver in saying 'no' and contesting an appeal by the developer." "In Whitton, once one mast had been approved over a dozen have appeared and more are now being sought. I would have thought that if there are any adverse health effects they would be multiplied by the concentration of beams from many masts close together"
Bookmark this story at:
Related News Stories:Thu 17th Mar 2005: Mon 1st Nov 2004: Phone Operators Want More Masts. Wed 28th Aug 2002: Published and promoted by Vincent Cable, 2A Lion Road, Twickenham, Middlesex TW1 4JQ. The views expressed are those of the party, not of the service provider. |