|
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. Only a very limited number of homes were consulted – and the
application just referred to a ‘street pole’, hiding what the phone mast really
was!
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 20m / 66ft, 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 ambience of the Crabtree conservation area and would detract from the view from
the neighbouring Bishop’s
Park 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. So will the Bishop’s Park and Lillie Road recreation areas 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.
|
Locations
within range: approx horiz distance (m/yds) from Google Maps
|
|
Bus
shelter, Fulham Palace Rd
|
Point
blank range
|
|
Fulham
Cross Academy, Kingwood Rd
|
71m
/ 77yds
|
|
Childerley
Education Centre, Childerley St
|
82m
/ 89yds
|
|
Ormiston
Bridge Academy, Greswell St
|
263m
/ 287yds
|
|
Melrose
House nursery school, Finlay St
|
271m
/ 296yds
|
|
Millie’s
House nursery school, Fulham Palace Rd
|
345m
/ 377yds
|
|
Marmalade
Hedgehog nursery school, Cloncurry St
|
352m
/ 384yds
|
|
Queens Manor school, Lysia St
|
400m
/ 437yds
|
|
Bishops Park, Stevenage Rd (next
to Fulham FC ground)
|
408m
/ 444yds
|
|
Fulham Cross Girls’ School,
Munster Rd
|
413m
/ 451yds
|
|
SHS Montessori nursery school,
Munster Rd
|
419m
/ 458yds
|
|
St John’s Walham Green Primary School,
Filmer Rd
|
488m
/ 533yds
|
● 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.)
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 when we
all need to keep energy consumption down. It could mean the difference
between having local power cuts and keeping homes and businesses going.
|
