Mast proposal shows a total lack of concern’
PUBLISHED: 11:55 01 February 2007 | UPDATED: 14:59 12 May 2010
MY wife and I are appalled that yet again a planning application is about to be made for another telephone mast in close proximity to houses and just on the edge of a conservation area as well as a school nearby. As stated, there are already 14 masts in t
MY wife and I are appalled that yet again a planning application is about to be made for another telephone mast in close proximity to houses and just on the edge of a conservation area as well as a school nearby.
As stated, there are already 14 masts in the town. Enough is enough. No-one can be absolutely sure of the effects on the health of people living in close proximity to these masts so the risk should be avoided.
There must be an alternative in this day of high-tech.
We say definitely NO.
IAN B GAVINE
I HAVE received correspondence with regard to the sighting of a 22.5 metre mast at the telephone exchange in Baldock Street, virtually in the heart of Royston.
I am totally against this application for a number of reasons:
- It will be visible from many areas within the Town and will dominate the skyline;
- It is obscene to corrupt our historic town with such structures, we have tolerated a number of masts on behalf of mobile operators in the past, this is one to many;
- It overshadows the conservation area, and will devalue the town.
- It will cause unnecessary distress for many people in the proximity, who will always believe there are health problems associated with such antenna.
The policy of siting masts in telephone exchanges has to be taken in context; a broad brush approach regardless of town character and well-being shows a total lack of understanding or concern.
Nevertheless, I am sure the company involved will continue to drive its aims forward at our environmental cost.
I can only trust it fails in its endeavours.
County Councillor DOUG DRAKE
Herts County Council
I WOULD like to thank The Crow for the excellent front page in last week's edition (January 25) regarding the phone mast protest.
I particularly liked the editorial Opinion, which was absolutely spot on.
The protest is gaining considerable momentum and we have now informed all the local residents directly affected by the mast in the Kneesworth St/Palace Gardens area in Royston.
My wife has seen MP Oliver Heald and he is firmly behind the protest, giving some suggestions of how we might get even more people to write to the planning committees when appropriate.
One of his suggestions was for a local paper to print a "protest voucher" that readers could fill in and send to the planners at the right time.
I wonder how you feel about this idea?
We will continue to inform your readers of any progress on this application as and when we have new information.
Thank you again for your support in keeping central Royston unblemished from an unnecessary and inappropriate development.
DR PETER NORTH