|
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. Also no Site
Notice was seen at the intended site, contrary to usual 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 mast’s power or the safe distance
required (‘exclusion zone’)
● Visual impact: At 17m / 55ft, 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 and cause anxiety.
This is
totally out of keeping with the relaxed, low-level ambience of the 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. The
underground wiring to the mast and cabinets could interfere with nearby trees’
roots.
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. So will the Lillie Road recreation area where families gather and children
play.
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.
Site
would be opposite the Captain Cook pub, the Bedford Arms pub/Bedford
Passage and the Aintree Estate. The immediate range of approx 500m/546 yds
is shown as a red circle.
|
Locations
within range: approx horiz distance (m/yds) from Google Maps
|
|
The
Bedford Arms pub, Dawes Rd and Bedford Passage
|
15m
/ 16 yds
|
|
The
Captain Cook pub, Dawes Rd
|
18m
/ 19 yds
|
|
Aintree
Estate, Aintree St (flats, from)
|
40m
/ 43 yds
|
|
Kido Intl School
& Nursery, Estcourt Rd
|
95m
/ 103 yds
|
|
St Thomas of Canterbury Primary School, Estcourt Rd
|
132m
/ 144 yds
|
|
Sir John Lillie Primary School,
Lillie Rd
|
150m
/ 164 yds
|
|
Little People of Fulham nursery, Lillie Rd
|
230m
/ 251 yds
|
|
Fulham Cross Girls’ School,
Munster Rd
|
250m
/ 273 yds
|
|
Peques nursery, Dawes Rd
|
357m
/ 390 yds
|
|
SHS Montessori nursery school,
Munster Rd
|
387m
/ 423 yds
|
|
Lillie
Rd recreation ground
|
392m
/ 428 yds
|
|
St John’s Walham Green Primary School,
Filmer Rd
|
455m
/ 495 yds
|
● 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 Cross 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.)
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”.
● Not really needed: 5G is already available in the area for those who
want it.
5G masts are known to be energy
intensive. It would be mad to approve an unnecessary mast at a time of
energy conservation.
|
