LOCAL parents are putting pen to paper to fight a proposal by T-Mobile to site a telecommunications base station within a stone's throw of Wooteys Junior and Infants schools. Currently in the consultation stage, the pre- application is for a base station with mast on a site opposite the junction with Divers Close. Local fears are centred around the close proximity of the mast both to the schools and to local homes, including Marlfield residential and nursing home. Like scores of others, parent Patrizia Napoli has written to T-Mobile agents, AWA Telecommunications, to register her strong objections to the proposal and urging the company to find a more suitable location for the base station. She writes: "I am very concerned that the biological effects and irradiation emitted from the proposed development may affect the children attending Wooteys School. These fears will, in my opinion, affect the quality of local life, and therefore have a detrimental amenity of the area." Mrs Napoli draws attention to the Stewart Report which recommends that exclusion zones should be placed around sensitive sites, such as schools and homes, in the UK in line with other European countries. "This recommendation claims that there is a potential concern in placing masts close to sensitive locations close to hospitals and residential areas." Mrs Napoli told The Herald: "Everyone else in Europe seems to recognise the need for an exclusion zone. We always seem to follow their example, so why not now. "How will we feel if, in 10 years time, all the children attending Wooteys develop some kind of health problem related to this development. It will be 10 years too late. "If T-Mobile is allowed to put the mast up and our children start to suffer from headaches, they are not going to take it down again. We need to negotiate an alternative site before it goes up." Eagle Close resident Dave Mackenzie has a different view. He is concerned over the perceived hypocrisy of objectors who own mobile phones. "Numerous letters are flying around urging people to write protesting about a new mobile phone mast on or near Gilbert White Way. Could I ask all those who do write and protest to add to their letters the statement 'neither I nor any member of my household (especially children) owns or uses a mobile phone.' "The only reason for these masts is to cope with the demand of those who use the phones. If they are not erected in our back yard, they will be erected in somebody else's." Mrs Napoli was keen to counteract this argument by stating: "We all have mobile phones, so we all understand the need for telecommunication masts. But there is enough space to put it somewhere more practical, it does not have to go right on top of a school." While staff at the school felt unable to comment, due to political reasons, local county and district councillor Tony Ludlow was equally bound by strict rules that govern the conduct of councillors and planning meetings. He explained: "We sit on the planning committee as judges where we have to listen to all the arguments and come to a fair decision. If we announce our views in advance, then we are deemed to have made up our minds and are disqualified from speaking or voting. That is quite reasonable. If you were in the dock you would not welcome a judge who came in and said 'I am going to hang the fellow' before the trial had started." Because of this, Dr Ludlow has been unable to give a view on the matter. However, he has advised residents that the government has paid for a significant amount of research on health risks and has concluded that there are no health risks associated with this sort of telecommunication base station. "We have to take that advice seriously," said Dr Ludlow, who advised anyone wishing to object to the application to do so on aesthetic grounds showing, for example, that the development would be an eyesore or that it would be better if T-mobile were to share another mast with another company. Speaking about the pre-application, East Hampshire District Council's head of planning north Chris Murray explained that the proposal was still in the pre-application stage and was currently the subject of a consultation exercise being carried out on behalf of T- Mobile by AWA Telecommunications. He confirmed that a large number of residents had already written to AWA objecting to the proposal, and copying the letters to him. EHDC had not, as yet, expressed a view on the pre-application. Having carried out the consultation, Mr Murray said that T-Mobile would then have to submitt a full application for consideration by EHDC planners, which would involve further consultation with the public. Mr Murray reiterated Dr Ludlow's advice concerning the risk factor, saying that all applications now came in with government approved health certificates which had to be accepted by planners. But while that makes it impossible to refuse such an application based on health issues, EHDC planners still try to discourage the erection of telecommunication masts close to schools. "We normally try and persuade applicants to try and find an alternative location," he said.
