I expect that I am not alone amongst local councillors in having large numbers of objections every time a mbile phone mast is proposed. As Chair of the planning committee for seven years, I heard many pleas from residents, many of which could not be taken into account, due to the government’s rules on planning for masts.
The objections to these masts come from councillors of all three main parties, so you would have thought that they would have welcomed the opportunity to do something about it. Sadly, not so.
On 25th June, Liberal Democrat MP Andrew Stunell moved an amendment to the Planning Bill which, if passed, would have:
• required full planning permission for the erection of all phone masts, meaning that phone companies would have had to apply for full planning permission in the same way as any other business;
• ensured that full information was supplied with the application regarding the strength and direction of the beam of maximum intensity;
• given greater protection to educational and medical establishments in the area, and
• removed as a ground for granting planning permission that there is a lack of full scientific certainty about the extent of the threat of damage to health or the environment.
Only one Conservative MP and two Labour MPs supported the amendment, none of them local. Conservative MPs David Gauke and Ann Main failed to support the amendment, despite voting on another amendment just seven minutes later, whilst Claire Ward voted against.
Don’t get me wrong: I own a mobile phone and find it very useful. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t back reasonable controls. However as a result of this vote, communities in Three Rivers will continue to find it hard to battle against inappropriate phone masts and more residents will worry about the health effects of local masts.
I have proposed a motion for next week’s full Council meeting on this subject and await the responses with interest.
Related posts: