I READ with interest the letter (February 18) from Bury's chief planning officer, Mr Daniel. This concerned the legal position of the planning authority when considering the siting of a mobile phone mast at Holcombe Brook.
The decision of the council members to allow the mast appeared to be based on information from Mr Daniel, dated 2001. This implied that an appeal on health grounds would be pointless - and expensive.
Perhaps by now they are now aware of two appeals, dated 2003, where the High Court overturned the verdict of the Secretary of State.
Mr Prescott had attempted to dismiss the judgement of two local authorities which had refused planning permission for phone masts in their areas. The High Court concluded that the Secretary of State had not sufficiently taken into account the latest worldwide research into possible health risks from mobile phone masts.
Quoting from one case, it was upheld that: "The inspector failed to adequately consider the weight to be given to the health concerns". The inspector in question had opposed the local authority "because the mast conformed to ICNIRP guidelines that there was no need to consider health concerns".
A second case led the High Court to report as follows: "Not only people's health fears have to be taken into account but also - concerning the location for the mast and base station selected by the network operator - that the question is not just is this an acceptable location, but is this the best location?"The judge then stated: "And for the purpose of answering that question, one can and should look at whatever alternative possibilities there might be".
This information became available in 2003 and I am concerned that Mr Daniel has not mentioned this in his letter to the Bury Times.
It appears that some local authorities have had the wisdom to challenge and win the argument concerning the siting of mobile phone masts. There is a need for local authorities to present a united front in order to change the law and to ensure phone masts are sited away from habitation.
Councils could then be absolved from the responsibility of refusing such planning applications.
MASTWATCH BURY
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article