Mobile Phone Mast Planning Applications

[jeffkinn]

We see a lot of posts on here from customers moaning about the coverage in their area - usually with good reason.

However, what people all too often forget about is that the networks always have an uphill battle with local authorities and resident during the planning process. We all want a good mobile signal but we don't want a mast anywhere near us. This story is typical

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/ashford-residents-never-right-object-9902290

As customers we need to get real - if we want to use phones we need to have masts in as many places as possible.

Or do we?  Thoughts?

[BandOfBrothers]

We do see posts from people who want masts on their private land - I wonder what happens to those. 

I remember the NIMBY name ”opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away“

[jeffkinn]

Not in my back yard. That's what NIMBY stands for. Also there are those who still believe that mobile masts pose health risks when it's been proved over and over that such fears are groundless.

[DaddyPaul]

"Proved over and over"? Not sure about that. At the moment, we just don't know. There seems to be some well demonstrated health effects from phones, reducing sperm count being one, and some not so well proven effects, but which still give cause for concern.

Being a recent convert to smartphones I love mine, and want coverage. But I wouldn't want to live or work near a mast. I am that nimby! Although I'm not an expert on the technology, I imagine that one way to minimise exposure while maximising coverage would be to force companies to share masts. I'd heard this was going to happen in remote areas anyway.

The biggest problem in addressing concerns over EMF health effects is that no company or umbrella organisation wants to admit that there might be a problem, whether that's mobiles, cordless, or wifi. As a result they won't take even the simplest steps towards reducing exposure such as putting an on/off switch or a signal strength control on wifi routers.

[jeffkinn]

It's impossible to prove that something doesn't do something - you can only prove that it does. The total absence of proof from multiple investigations that phone masts have any affect health, including fertility, is as good as you're ever going to get.

If you want coverage and a smartphone then you have to accept that the landscape will be covered with phone masts and accept them just as we learned a long time ago to accept electricity pylons.

Networks do share masts but not the equipment on the masts.

And I've never seen a Wi Fi router that didn't have an on/off switch.

[Trevelson]

Strangely that is not the dreaded EU opinion, there is a growing belief that mobile phones, mast and all manner of other modern conveniences are causing sub thermal thealth issues.

when a mast is installed a simple document basically states that it is within guidelines and won’t cause us mere humans harm. How many times does an application show the local EMF readings, how many then show the combined EMF readings - precisely non..... why. 

Anyone have any thoughts .

[Trevelson]

There is an umbrella organisation that has researched the effects of EMF’s and the sub thermal effects of mobile phone use -  regrettably its the EU.

They have passed laws which are simply ignored by our government, this whilst still firmly in the EU and in theory having to abide by the laws which are agreed, the fall back status in the UK is the ICNIRP guidelines ( note guidelines) are sufficient to maintain our safety, the EU laws ( note laws) are ignored.

The EU decreed some time ago that ICNIRP guidelines did not offer its citizens the safety required .

[pctechbloke]

The further a cellular device is from a transceiver location the more link power it has to use to maintain the connection.

In addition, the transmit power of the transceiver location also has to be increased so if you are someone that is worried about the health effects you want less of both, not more.

It should also be remembered that EE hold more spectrum than anyone else so Vodafone may also have placed the mast where they did to ensure that it did not become congested so that anyone in the village could use their phone when they wanted/needed to.

As a side note on the aesthetics front there's also been protests about broadband street cabinets to house routers and DSLAMs for VDSL

Yes, agreed some of the kit is ugly but if you want the services, it has to go somewhere.

Did Vodafone ever disguise their transmission sites as trees or was that purely an Orange thing?

[Trevelson]

This village will soon be getting a vodafone mast in the centre of the village. EMF is real, well documented and there is already legislation in place. In this village EMF readings have been taken from a huge amount of locations, it will be interesting to note any increase once the mast and its ancillary equipment is in place...

[Trevelson]

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1504557551641&uri=CELEX:52009IP0216

Interesting reading...