|
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 limited number of homes were consulted.
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 / 56ft, the proposed mast would be well above
the height of the typical buildings, trees and street furniture in the neighbouring
Hurlingham conservation
area. It would stick out
like a sore thumb and cause anxiety. It would be totally out of keeping with
the 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 borough’s Local Plan gives priority to
conservation and protecting trees (Policies OS4, OS5).
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.
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.
Approx radius of 500m/1,640ft from
proposed site
|
Locations
within range: approx horiz distance (m/yds) from Google Maps
|
|
Bridge
Studios and pavement, Wandsworth Bridge Rd
|
Point
blank range
|
|
Barton
House, Wandsworth Bridge Rd
|
35m
/ 38yds
|
|
LEYF
nursery school, Cairns House, Wandsworth Bridge Rd
|
48m
/ 52yds
|
|
Puffins
nursery school, Hugon Rd
|
150m
/ 164yds
|
|
Thomas’s Academy, Hugon Rd
|
186m
/ 203yds
|
|
Hurlingham Academy, Peterborough
Rd
|
350m
/ 382yds
|
|
Langford Primary School, Gilstead Rd and Sands End Adventure Playground
|
490m
/ 535yds
|
● 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.
(Some mast radiation readings in the borough 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.
|
