is just an extract but gets over the gist of the argument .....
The first thing to remember about phone masts, the planning system
and adverse health effects is that it does not matter about proving
there is a risk.
It is not a question of the proof is in the eating, in fact quite the reverse.
If you could prove an adverse health effect, then there are other
forms of legislation, and policing of the threat, such as the process
for statutory nuisance under the Environment Act 1995, or the powers
available to the Heath and Safety Executive.
The only issue that is a material planning consideration is the FEAR,
or perception that the local community hold that there is an adverse
health effect. You have therefore too clearly get the message over to
the planners that it really does not matter about any proof, you have
the required degree of fear.
Far too often local planning officers tell the public that health is
NOT a material planning consideration. That is a factually incorrect
statement. Health, or the fear, is a material consideration and MUST
be taken into account. Any decision that fails to take health into
account will be contrary to law.
That has now been demonstrated to be wrong in law in four separate
High Court cases. These are the significant cases that we have all
been waiting for. Unfortunately far too many masts have been approved
that, had health been taken into account, would not have been.
It is now not possible for any local authority to argue that health
is NOT a material planning consideration without running the risk of
having decision overturned, and thereby costing the local council tax
payers tens of thousands in wasted court costs.
First it must be clearly kept in mind that Government Planning Policy
Guidance Notes are just that guidance. Although they cannot be
ignored, they are not so rigid that they must be followed to the letter
the full version on www.mastsanity.org
takes a bit of time but you'll find it really worthwhile.