Mobile phone masts are one of the thorniest issues being dealt with by Planning Committees up and down the Country. Recently Erewash Planning Committee agreed one mast application and refused another. The lack of any evidence of detriment to health means the reasons for refusal are fairly narrow. For instance a refusal can be based on the bad siting or visual intrusion.
Although there is extensive scientific work indicating that there are no health risks from properly sited masts, still there is a genuine fear of masts from some people. Whilst mobile phone operators try to improve coverage to give their customers a better service, they continually meet with opposition based on fear rather than facts. It's a real paradox for local representatives.
 |
| PHONE MAST AT SAWLEY |
Mobile phone operators have tried information offensives but are hampered by misinformation and prejudiced reporting in Newspapers. A recent example of prejudiced reporting was in the Daily Express. The headline was "Girl,11,defeats phone giants in mast battle." 90% of the article was pure fudge and it isn't until you get to the last paragraph that it transpires that the Stockport Planning Committee refused the application, not on health grounds, but due to "The masts height, appearance and prominent siting, which would have a negative visual impact on the surrounding area." Those reasons are a far cry from the general tone of the piece, which reinforces prejudice rather than informs and must be deeply annoying to the mobile phone industry.
I am aware that some media don't let facts get in the way of a good story, but if we are to get decent signal coverage masts are a necessary part of the landscape. Site them well, but don't let prejudice wreck the effectiveness of technology. After all, good communication is a friend rather than a foe.
