|
SOME ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PROPOSAL, PLEASE USE YOUR OWN WORDS
● Lack of respect for us?: The applicant did not feel all of the local schools
within range were worth consulting, which would have been expected
practice.
The proposal does not contain a
risk assessment given the known evidence of
dangers
and the fact that the technology has not been tested. It does not give
expected technical details like the masts’ power or the safe distance
required (‘exclusion zone’)
● Visual impact: The proposed mast would be well above the height of
the buildings and trees in the area. It would stick out like a sore thumb,
causing anxiety in a normally relaxed setting.
This is
totally out of keeping with the ambience of the Bishop’s Park conservation area and would detract from the view from
the neighbouring Colehill Gardens conservation area.
It
will affect property values for those close to it – assuming that they can sell at
all.
● Conservation: Trees
within
range would also suffer the harmful effects of radiation. They are a key
part of the character of the area and provide environmental benefits.
International studies show that they
would be harmed by radiation levels already being recorded against masts in
our Borough. Our Local Plan gives priority to conservation.
Mast
radiation is also harmful to pollinators, such as bees (Video).
● Health and children’s safety: Several homes, schools and nurseries will be within
range. Not least our much-loved Bishop’s Park recreation area where families
relax and children play.
The mast and its cabinets would be a
distraction to drivers on Bishop’s Ave when they need to concentrate on
possible hazards. At 5’8” / 1.75m high, the cabinets could block the view
of children to drivers, and vice versa.
Joshua Pearce of the University of
Western Ontario is not ‘anti-mast’, being a shareholder of
a telecoms infrastructure company. However, citing technical studies on the
effects of mast radiation on children, he urges that masts should be at least
500m / 1,640ft from schools.
Equally aware of the danger, the state
government in New Hampshire, USA, have moved
to keep masts the same distance from schools, playgrounds and care homes.
|
Locations
within range: approx horiz distance (m/ft/yds) from Google Maps* or
plans^
|
|
All Saints Primary School,
Bishop’s Ave, outhouse nearby
|
21m / 70ft^
|
|
All Saints Primary School,
Bishop’s Ave, grounds
|
50m / 164ft^
|
|
All Saints Primary School,
Bishop’s Ave, main building
|
58m / 198ft^
|
|
The Moat School, Bishop’s Ave
|
100m / 109yds^
|
|
Marmalade Hedgehog Nursery School,
Cloncurry St
|
157m / 172 yds*
|
|
Parsons Green Prep, Fulham Park Rd
|
395m / 432yds*
|
|
Fulham Pre Prep School; Fulham
High St
|
397m / 434yds*
|
|
The Childerley Centre,
Childerley St
|
454m / 497yds*
|
|
Sinclair House School; Fulham High
St
|
467m / 510yds*
|
|
Ormiston Bridge Academy, Finlay
St
|
475m / 519yds*
|
|
|
|
|
Bishop’s Avenue – Lodge
|
22m / 71ft^
|
|
Bishop’s
Avenue – typical tennis court area (from)
|
45m / 147ft^
|
|
Bishop’s Park - Play area (sand)
|
370m / 405yds*
|
|
All the play areas of Bishop’s Park
apart from the northern tip are
|
|
|
within 500m /1,640ft*
|
|
● This is important
as children's bodies are still
developing and they are more vulnerable to mast radiation effects. A Chief Medical
Officer has called for minimising their exposure.
(To date, fortunately mast radiation
readings in the Fulham Palace Rd area have been some of the lowest taken in
the borough. Elsewhere readings already peak at well above safety limits –
and are rising. Example snapshots here, more information on request.)
RADIATION LEVELS RISING IN THE BOROUGH…
|
|
5.558V/m outside the
Care
Home, Farm Lane. Worse since a
new mast.
(left)
4.724V/m
outside
Ibis Hotel, Lillie Rd
|
3.999V/m outside Thomas’s
Day School, Hugon Rd (Residents
recently stopped the proposer putting rooftop masts close to the school.)
|
|
These figures are all well above
internationally-recognised limits for prolonged exposure
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution
1815 (2011) Final version
‘The potential
dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment’
calls to
8.2.1. set preventive
thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all indoor
areas in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding
0.6 volts per metre, and in the medium term to reduce it to
0.2 volts per metre;
The worst figure is nearly ten times the limit – we don’t
need any more masts, thanks!
|
● Not really needed: 5G is
already available in the area for those who want it.
To approve the mast proposal would
effectively appear to compromise H&F Council’s statutory duty of care: "preventing
impairment to children's health or development". Time to remind the Council of its promise in its recent
Annual Report sent to Council
Tax payers: “Keeping residents safe is our No 1 priority”.
|
