Campaign Against Tetra Siting (CATS): North Walsham Update

December 2004

Despite all my previous rantings, I now take my hat off to the District Council.

After the last meeting they undertook to obtain details from O2 of their claim for compensation, and details of operational consequences from Norfolk Constabulary. This information was received within the 7 days they had allowed, and they then scheduled an emergency meeting of the Development Control Committee. This was held on Friday 19th November.

There were two letters from the police, one given with the notes and one that was read out. They were both unequivocal. They were not prepared to compromise on the coverage so far achieved, they felt that to cease transmission would interfere significantly with their training programs, stopping this mast would lead to lawlessness throughout the land, they would no longer be able to care for and ‘protect’ the community etc.

The letter from O2’s solicitors (Lawrence Graham) set out the costs they would have of commissioning an emergency mobile base station, erecting a temporary mast elsewhere, strangely expensive connections they would have to make to the BT phone network (?) etc. etc. The eventual figure exceeded £100,000 with the provisio that this was only an estimate and ‘our clients will seek to recover their entire loss which may be greater...’

To finish our deepening unease the legal head also mentioned the recent Appeal court ruling on the Harrogate mast, saying that the ICNIRP guides were sufficient, and health concerns could only be allowed in ‘exceptional circumstances’. We were told that this made the chances of winning any litigation ‘less good’, and increased the risk of financial loss.

By now the protestor contingent were feeling very glum. The head of planning summed up the likely costs and said they need to be weighed against the benefits. These were of allaying fears amongst residents and police staff, improving public relations with the police, restoring public trust and confidence in local democracy and the planning system, and encouraging applicants (O2) to seek alternatives.

Councillors then stood up and defended the residents in an admirable fashion. They spoke of how they had worked very hard to find suitable compromises with O2. How it was unreasonable to have so many people living in fear, and even the WHO regard that as a health risk. How the ICNIRP guidelines give no protection to long-term low level radiation, and what are known as ‘non-thermal effects’. How we could no longer trust police opinion. How money and expediency were taking precedence over any precaution. How this had become a matter of principle and of morals. That there was a duty of care for the public, and that the thuggish bullying behaviour of O2 must be resisted. That the vote should be a matter of conscience.

The Councillors then voted by 12 votes to 1 to serve a Stop Notice. For which I am extremely grateful.

We now have to wait for the Planning Inspectorate to rule on O2’s appeals. This is expected to happen within about 6 weeks. The national position does’nt look good, and I have much less confidence in their ruling than I had a month ago. But I am still so very glad that the District Council is prepared to fight for us, and to say there is a limit to how far they will be pushed around.

The mast is now off.

Following the issuing of the Stop Notice on 22nd November, the police wrote back to confirm that transmissions were suspended from 10.30 PM on Thursday 25th November.

I can confirm that my Acousticom monitor has now ceased the clicking death rattle of Tetra, and that my television reception has returned.

On reviewing the story so far, I realise that I have omitted to mention the support given by local Tory prospective candidate Iain Dale. He has been at our last CATS meeting, and both the recent Planning Meetings. His comment on his e-mail newsgroup goes:

‘This decision should restore people’s faith in local democracy. The Council have taken a brave and courageous decision which ought to receive the backing of the whole population of North Norfolk. They have issued a STOP notice in the knowledge that O2 may react by taking the Council to court. They have stood up to a giant company which has tried to ride roughshod over local people. O2 say that there is no other site for the mast. I find it very odd, and a great coincidence, that the only site which they find suitable happens to be on the police station. In the end we must adopt the precautionary principle outlined by Sir William Stewart in his report. We cannot play with people’s health or people’s lives. I strongly urge O2 to act responsibly and find an alternative site for the TETRA mast and to follow proper planning procedures in future.’

So with support from LibDem Norman Lamb, and conservative candidate Iain Dale, and the recent Norwich meeting with Sir William Stewart being arranged by Labour MP Dr Ian Gibson, the protest is at least crossing the political boundaries in Norfolk at present.

MP
November 27th 2004

October 2004: Further developments, but no mast removal

The most important change was the reports of sickness inside the North Walsham police station. Some of these were support staff, in the unfortunate position of working on the first floor of the building, no doubt within the splatter of the side lobes produced from the Tetra mast. One person who reported illness, however, was the Chief Inspector, Mr Strong, the senior police officer in the area. He has been prepared to put his career on the line by coming out and stating that the mast was making him ill. This was reported in the Telegraph of August 14th.

The same details and more appeared in the local press, as had previous coverage of the Tetra issue. It appears significant that the online versions of all the Tetra stories in the local press have been removed.

The gossip from the police station is that the Chief Inspector has become based in a nearby town Sheringham, and that operational staff have also been moved elsewhere. As ever with Tetra, all is closed doors and rumour.

On my last update, we poor sad protestors were expecting either a new planning application from O2, or a Stop Notice to be served by the Council. Throughout August we were continually reassured that discussions were still taking place, that O2 was in constant touch with the District Council, that numerous sites were being considered for suitability, that landlords needed to be found, contacted etc. etc.

Eventually we were informally informed that a site had been agreed, that the landlord had given his consent, and that we should expect the planning application through in mid September. We had it rumoured that this site was near the local garden centre. This had previously been put forward by O2 as a possible temporary site, if they had problems with implementation at the police station. This is still not what we would consider a suitable site, though at least it is not as close to schools. We still do not know as protestors why our two best sites, both out of town, had not been taken further. One, a waste site, had been discounted by O2 because there wasn’t enough room (this site covers 1.7 acres). Another, a skip dumping site right on the edge of town, with views of the horizon in most directions, was rejected as it ‘did not give the required coverage’.

It has become apparent throughout this that O2 are happy to give any old crap to the District Council as ‘reasons’ for their behaviour, and the DC seem unable to do anything other than to accept this at face value. When O2 heard of the Stop Notice vote on the 10th June, they threatened the DC with compensation, on the grounds that this was already an operational network. It has since been confirmed that they are not expecting to formally hand over the system until March 2005. When I had earlier tried to inform the DC of this, I was told that they were not interested and it was not relevant.

So following the lack of planning application, the next information we received was copies of a letter Josh Berle of O2 had written to our MP Norman Lamb. In this letter he claimed that 16 sites had been investigated with the DC, that only one at the garden centre comes close to providing adequate radio coverage, but that it is still not as effective as the police station, and that they ‘are not prepared to compromise on the levels of radio coverage so far achieved’.

O2’s position on being unprepared to move was confirmed with reports in the local press. We started getting more desperate with our lobbying, and received considerable support from our MP Norman Lamb, and from our local Councillors. The Stop Notice, voted for on June 10th, and then held in abeyance while an alternative site was sought, seemed to have been forgotten by the DC. The head of planning wrote to a resident on October 14th that ‘a Stop Notice was considered carefully but in the light of legal advice ... it was decided that it was not appropriate to serve¤. This was news to all councillors, and seems symptomatic of local council officers being unaware of where their responsibilities lie.

Fortunately, the lobbying of the Council from many sides, and the unjustifiable position they were attempting, led to a further debate, titled ‘retention of unauthorised Telecommunications Equipment at North Walsham Police Station’. This was held on 28th October, and for many of us it had become a crucial matter to find out where we actually stood, and whether we should be trying to move etc.

At the debate all Councillors who spoke, did so very strongly in our favour. They maintained that financial considerations were not sufficient measure when dealing with very real health fears and concerns. They did not believe that political considerations should intrude either. They said that it was simply about whether the Council was prepared to stand up to big business in defence of their constituents, or not. One after another, they demanded that the Stop Notice be served.

And then the legal department continued their relentless obfustication. According to a recent government circular, the legal chief cried, we have to undertake cost benefit analysis before serving any Stop Notice. They proposed giving O2 two weeks to come back with more detailed information as to financial and operational consequences of stopping their transmissions. After heated debate, this was reduced to 7 days. They would serve the notice if there was no reply, or inadequate justifications. However, even this only demands that they cease transmission until the appeal is heard, and does not demand that the equipment is removed, as did the Stop Notice voted for on June 10th. I also do not for a moment believe that O2 will give a true and fair view of their situation, why should they start now? Nor do I believe that the DC will be able to effectively judge any part of O2’s response. After all, they have significantly failed with this so far.

The only shreds of hope remaining are from the fact that the vote to proceed was unanimous, with 2 abstentions. The Council officers are now looking increasingly isolated. But there will still need to be another debate, after getting a response from O2, and it will probably be several weeks until this takes place.

So as ever, watch this space for further news ...

Matthew Pennington, 29th October 2004

July 2004

After the Stop Notice had been voted for by 14 votes to 1, we were surprised to find an increase in TV interference, and of health upsets, indicating that the signal strength had been increased again, back to its operational level. This was soon explained.

O2 had found out about the proposed Stop Notice from some immediate press reports. They responded with equally rapid threats from their legal agents (a group called Mono) telling the Council that they would be sued for large amounts if O2 were ‘forced’ to cease operations. They also informed the Council that their system was fully operational. There was also some unconfirmed complaints from them that it had been reported on Ceefax that they had lost the Appeal. This is all alleged gossip, as the strength of O2’s actions was sufficient to cause the Council to go into a huddle, and to quote legal necessities as a reason to supply no information to any of the local community.

We have not been able to find the alleged misreporting. We have been told that it did exist, and that there was some suspicion in the Council that this was due to the protestors. This was not the case, but the fact that the Council felt it significant suggests it may have been staged by O2. (Just protestor paranoia? Or too much precedent?)

The first part of their complaint, that this is an operational system, was used to threaten the Council with a large compensation bill. Our understanding is very much that this is a bluff, as handsets have not been issued, and other masts for the network are not in place, but it initially had the desired effect.

So no Stop Notice, the mast turned up, residents both in the dark, and becoming very depressed.

However the pressure from the still available Stop Notice, and increasing pressure from the Police, now becoming unhappy at the bad publicity, was sufficient to bring senior executives from O2 to meet with the Head of Planning. Councillors reported that they are still minded to proceed with the Notice, but will hold it in abeyance pending further negotiations. O2 are allegedly looking seriously at out of town sites, and are allegedly working with the Council to get a resolution as soon as possible.

On the ground, the protestors have been somewhat nullified by the present developments, and we have no choice but to wait and see. It is now 26th July, and we have been told that we can expect something concrete in about two weeks. We are also being told that if O2 are just stalling, then the Stop Notice will be quickly served.

It is all rather confusing really. Please watch this space, for either some kind of conclusion, or word of further protest.

top of page