A GROUP of local residents is preparing to launch a petition in protest against an application by T-mobile UK Ltd to site a 14.7 metre-high telecommunications mast on a stretch of verge alongside the A339 at Alton. And they are urging others to join the protest. The slimline monopole with antennae, equipment cabinet and electrical meter box, is said to be needed to provide 3G coverage for residential areas at the western end of the town and along the A339 as it leaves Alton in a westerly direction towards Beech. While not questioning the need for improvements to mobile phone coverage in the area, the residents, some of whom live in properties that will overlook the mast, believe it to be an inappropriate site. Although not a planning consideration, objectors are concerned about the possible health risks associated with a 3G (third generation) transmitter. Leonard Crockford, the nearest resident to the proposed site, is not able to use a mobile phone because he has a pacemaker. His wife Ann is so concerned about the effect of the emissions, she says she will leave her home rather than live near the mast. "While investigations have been carried out into the effect of emissions from G3 phone masts, nobody has given the masts a clean bill of health," pointed out Mr Crockford. Neighbour Sue Hubbard also questions the health risk, believing the mast should be sited further away from residential properties. And she is concerned about the visual impact of the mast at the entrance to the town. The proposed location is thought to be on a Hampshire County Council-owned grass verge between a field and the highway at the junction of the A339 and Whitedown Lane. Objectors cannot understand why the mast site has to be there. They want to see it moved, preferably to an existing mobile phone site further up the hillside at Brick Kiln Lane. While not wishing to appear a "Nimby", Mrs Hubbard believes there are many more people in Alton who would object to having a mast so close to the road and in a high profile location at an important entrance to the town. Since 2002 Hampshire County Council has adopted a policy which expresses "a strong general presumption against the siting of telecommunications base stations on the county council's land and buildings". The move followed the production of a planning guidance note for the siting of base stations across the county, developed in consultation with Hampshire's local planning authorities and the telecommunications industry, based on the results of a 12-month programme of monitoring emissions from base stations on county council land. Measurements across the county showed that levels of emissions were very low, with only two showing more than one per cent of the maximum levels recommended by the international commission, ICNIRP. The find led to the dropping of a moratorium, adopted since 1998, when the council was concerned about the possible long-term effects of electromagnetic field emissions (EMF) Commenting during the policy and resources decision day in June, 2002, Hampshire County Council leader Ken Thornber said: "While the results of emissions monitoring have demonstrated that the recorded levels are only a small fraction of recommended maximum levels, uncertainties still remain as to the potential long term effects of base station emissions. "Therefore, although the moratorium has been removed, there remains a strong general presumption against the sitting of telecommunications base stations on the county council's land and buildings. Approval for the siting of base stations on county council property may only be considered in exceptional circumstances where such sites Continued page 3 from populated areas, where the presence of a mast can be masked and where an overall community benefit can be demonstrated, health concerns allayed and environmental improvements achieved rather than use other available sites. "In those circumstances, there would be consultation with the community involved before a final decision was made." Cllr Thornber continued: "Significant uncertainty remains as to the long-term health risks associated with EMF emissions, but we will continue to monitor the situation closely. As a consequence, the Council's policy will be regularly reviewed in light of further national guidance." And, assures a HCC spokesperson, this policy still stands. According to the East Hampshire District Council case officer handling the application for T-mobile UK Ltd, because the proposed mast will be under 15 metres in height the applicant does not have to submit a full planning application. Instead, as the planning authority, EHDC now has 56 days to look at the design and siting of the proposed mast (application F49159/TEL/ AMW). Because the applicant has submitted the correct health certificates, in line with Government requirements, the question of possible health risk will not be an issue. Only if deemed contentious will the applicant be asked to submit a full planning application. With this in mind, residents are determined to raise a petition to force a proper public debate. They would like to see the mast sited further away from their properties and somewhere where it will be less of a blot on the surrounding landscape. As well as urging people to write on an independent basis to EHDC planners at Penns Place, Petersfield, Mr Crockford is inviting anyone who would like to sign the petition to contact him on 01420 88416 .
