A Summary of the responses we have received to the proposal to install mobile phone equipment in the church tower. Our survey

Transcription

1 A Summary of the responses we have received to the proposal to install mobile phone equipment in the church tower Our survey The PCC decided to conduct a voluntary consultation as an additional step before the planning process and was genuinely concerned to know what people thought about the proposal. The survey took part in November/ December 2014 and what follows is basically a summary presented to the PCC which has been updated to put on our website in January We surveyed addresses within a 100m radius of the tower which amounted to 130 residencies. We put up displays in church and the hall. We publicised the drop- in meeting in late November and invited people to give written feedback. The Headteacher of Hillbrook was informed about the proposals by Simon Metzner and NET sent letters to her and to local councillors. The response From our own consultation forms, letters and e- mails, we have written responses from 20 people against the proposal and 10 people in favour. There have been a number of verbal responses in addition to this. Local parents have promoted a petition which has 114 signatures objecting to siting a mast so close to Hillbrook School and other community centres.

2 Objections to the Proposal Criticism of our survey Respondents have argued that the residential survey did not cover a wide enough radius, that we have not surveyed parents from the school although their children would be within the radius of operation of the mast for the school day and that our drop- in meeting was at a time when working people would find it difficult to attend. Criticism of the main proposal The main argument put is that there is still a question mark over the safety of mobile phone masts some opponents put it more strongly and argue that they are proven to be harmful and that we are so close to Hillbrook School that it should not be sited here. The World Health Organisation s categorising of mobile phones as a 2b risk and possibly carcinogenic to humans is often cited and it s argued that there has not been enough research. The long- term impact of masts, it is argued, are not known e.g., for medical conditions that might present in mid- life. Those against the proposal say that a precautionary approach should include a ban on putting up masts near schools and they say that this is the policy in a number of other countries e.g., Sweden, Spain, Australia and parts of the USA. Additional Points from responses A concern is sometimes expressed about a possible change in regulation and the phone companies trying to get agreements

3 in ahead of this. Someone warned that 20 year agreements were not a good idea The opposition to a mast being cited in a school near Balham is often quoted This is an inappropriate/ disrespectful use of a church building Things now proved to be harmful (e.g., asbestos, tobacco) were thought to be safe to begin with. The church would be liable to legal action if future harm is proven An independent advisor should be appointed by the church to look at the health implications for the community We can choose whether or not to use a mobile phone but if a mast is erected, we have no choice Legal cases are being brought against mobile phone companies at present for alleged harms from phone use 3-5% of the population, it is alleged, are extra sensitive to radio waves and suffer adverse health effect because of mast Further criticism of our own process was that the NET representative who spoke to us was a PR person rather than a technical expert. Additionally in verbal discussion with one church member who is very opposed, as well as the health concerns, this person feels that the appearance of the tower will be spoilt and also believes that this is not a proper way for the church to raise money. Responses in Support of the Proposal It is good that this will improve the phone signal( it was argued at the meeting that without new masts in the area the phone

4 signal will deteriorate because of increased demands caused by more sophisticated apps) Those in favour were happy that this will benefit the church rather than a private individual or profit- making organisation. Most people use mobile phones and this is very useful technology and indeed with lots of potentially life- saving applications At our meeting it was said there are already 50 mobile phone masts within a 500 metre radius of the church (see There is a mast on St George s Hospital (the NET representative made the point at the meeting that there is also one on Great Ormond Street Children s Hospital) If the mast is not installed in the church, masts will be installed somewhere else close by and the church will lose the financial benefit and also those masts may well be lower and may not require planning permission so people will not have the chance to object even if they live close by. Lots of technologies are potentially dangerous, despite their benefits and it is the job of elected governments to ensure the safe operation of them. No link has been established in many reputable studies over the last twenty years between phone masts and the harms alleged. (See for example British Medical Journal also WHO factsheet 193: Electromagnetic fields and public health:mobile telephones also the science blog pages on Cancer Research UK particularly on the WHO definition of potentially carcinogenic )

5 There are many parts of the country where churches provide a service by having masts where broadband connection would otherwise be impossible.