Campaign Against Tetra Siting (CATS): January 2005 appeal decision

A brief summary of the Appeal Decision by the Planning Inspectorate, for North Walsham

The Inspector was S.M.Rolstone BSc MA MRTPI. There are two appeals combined, Ref:APP/Y2620/A/04/1148095 was the original refusal of planning

Ref: APP/Y2620/C/04/1152476 is for an enforcement notice issued after O2 ignored the first refusal. This is the reference for the Appeal Decision document.

This is for the use of an existing lattice tower, which had the Tetra equipment added to it without Planning permission, or prior approval notification. O2 had claimed that this was permitted development, our District Council had said it was an alteration.

The Inspector ruled that:

“4. What has happened in this case is not simply the addition of antennae. A supporting system of brackets has also been installed. There are three horizontal arms mounted near the top of the mast and projecting out beyond the outer square of the lattice tower. The plans supplied by the appellant show this outward projection as up to about 2m. Discounting the antennae, which are attached vertically to the ends of the support arms, what has been carried out has changed the mast from a lattice tower with a tapering square shape and no head frame to a lattice tower with three projecting arms near the top. The arms project by an appreciable distance and the change in shape of the mast is perceptible. In the context of the scale and nature of the mast I consider that this amounts, as a matter of fact and degree, to alteration of the mast.”

This part concludes that the development was in breach of planning permission. It is interesting to note that this ‘breach’ has no further effect on O2, or on the Inspectors decision.

“8. The main issue is whether the development is incompatible in the residential area by reason of the public anxiety created over health implications.”

The Inspector said that health considerations and public concerns can be material considerations and regards them as such in this case. “The site is in a predominantly residential area close to dwellings and community facilities, such as nurseries, care homes, schools, a hospital and a veterinary surgery. The Council, local Councillors, residents, the headmaster of a local school and managers of a day nursery express concern over the potential effects on people in the area, in particular groups such as children and the elderly, and highlight symptoms of ill-health amongst residents and police staff which they attribute to emissions from the installation. I do not doubt that the fear and concern, demonstrated by the considerable body of information put to me, are genuinely held feelings which in themselves have an adverse effect.”

“11. … The perceived health risks appear to be based in part on anecdotal evidence from this site and elsewhere and on selective research. … I consider that greater weight should be attached to the findings of those national and international bodies which can draw on a broad range of relevant expertise.”

Concerning the Stewart report:

“12. … took account of scientific evidence, including the greater sensitivity in general of children …concluded that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk … acknowledged that it is not possible at present to say…totally without potential adverse health effects … gaps in scientific knowledge. … justify a precautionary approach. The precautionary measures recommended, including adopting the ICNIRP guidelines in place of previous national guidelines, have been agreed by the government. They did not include a moratorium on installations in residential areas or minimum distances from certain types of property, such as schools or dwellings.”

On 16Hz levels and pulsing:

“13. … AGNIR … noted that signals from TETRA base stations are not pulsed and concluded that TETRA base stations should not be treated any differently than other base stations … it is unlikely that the special features of the signals from TETRA mobile terminals and repeaters pose a hazard to health.”

“14. A further AGNIR report in 2004 concludes that exposure levels from living near to mobile phone base stations are extremely low, and … unlikely to pose a risk to health. It did consider that the published research has limitations….possibility remains open that there could be health effects from exposure … continued research is needed. A programme of research continues, but the Government has not indicated any change to the precautionary approach referred to above.”

“15. … appellant (O2) has provided predicted field strengths…levels are a tiny fraction of guidelines adopted. … concerns over health effects are not supported by the objective technical evidence … one of the factors I take account of in determining what weight to give to the concerns.”

“16. … clear coverage plots are provided … without the installation, the urban area of North Walsham lacks the required +15dBm level …”

The rest of the ‘decision’ relates to O2’s claims at having looked at other sites, which they had been forced to do by the District Council. The Inspectorate is more than happy with O2’s unverified claims that none of these give the signal strengths they require. Two sites are mentioned which would give coverage, but would need higher masts creating “much greater visual impact and conflict with PPG8 and Local Plan aims to minimise the number of masts and sites …” despite these alternatives being in much clearer and ‘safer’ areas. “I am satisfied that the site search … has been thorough and that … this is not a case where there is an alternative suitable site acceptable in environmental terms.” It would be very hard to find anyone in the area who would agree with this assessment, but it is interesting to note how low health fears go in the weighting process.

“20. … While material to my assessment of the proposals, the consideration of public anxiety over health implications is not of such weight as to make … the … development incompatible in the residential area … or to provide compelling reasons for withholding planning permission.”

So to sum up: Yah Boo Sucks to the lot of you, we don’t care a jot for your health fears, and we regard a safety guideline that clearly stipulates that it gives no protection to long-term low level emissions as more than you deserve.

January 21st 2005

top of page