News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


News coverage for York, Ryedale, East Yorkshire, Harrogate and Selby.

Popular topics: Community Stadium | Snow | Germany Beck | ftr | Queen's visit | Council tax


Mobile masts bid near schools


CONTROVERSIAL plans for two mobile phone masts, both close to York primary schools, have been filed with the city council.

Mobile phone firm O2 wants to install a communications mast on the roof of the King William pub, in Barkston Avenue, Chapelfields.

Governors at nearby Westfield Primary Community School have already criticised the telecommunications giant for failing to consider the wellbeing of youngsters.

In addition, Vodafone wants to place a 12-metre mast to the rear of White Cross Court Rehabilitation Unit, in White Cross Road. The site is near to Haxby Road Primary School.

Both masts would be within 300 yards of the respective schools.

Governors at Westfield have vowed to continue their protest against the proposed mast, with which O2 wants to replace an existing flagpole attached to the King William pub.

Residents say they are concerned about associated health risks for pupils from the mast and have united to protest against the global telecommunications company’s planning application.

City of York Council leader Andrew Waller, who is a governor at the school, said he has objected to the mast on behalf of the school body.

He said: “As a councillor and a governor of Westfield Primary School, I have been asked by the other governors to oppose this proposal.

“While there have been a number of studies into the effects of mobile phone masts, and the Stewart Report, the public has yet to be convinced.

“It is clear that fellow governors of Westfield are concerned about the possible health risks and so l have made the objections clear to O2.”

In 2002, residents successfully blocked an application from Orange to build a 20-metre mobile phone mast at Broad Lane, which is a similar distance from the school to the latest proposal.

Rosie Wall, who used to run Chapelfields Residents’ Association, said feelings in the community remained the same about the phone masts.

“A mobile phone mast was not appropriate to be built near a school then and it is not now,” she said.

O2 said it needed the mast to provide 3G coverage to Chapelfields and Acomb.

A spokesman for the phone operator said: “O2 takes advice from UK and international bodies such as the Health Protection Agency.

“Working with their guidelines, there is no substantiated scientific evidence that mobile phone stations pose a threat to health.”

Coun Ken King, who represents the Clifton ward in which Haxby Road Primary School stands, said he had not received any complaints from the school or residents.

But he said he would have lobbied to have a mast put elsewhere if constituents had contacted him.

Comments(11)

plaggy terry says...
12:36pm Mon 20 Oct 08

AND I bet the same idiots whinging,probably use 02 0r vodaphone and would benefit from an increased reception of mobile signal.
Wont do any harm anyway.and who cares if some scroats from chappy get their brains fried.Could do more good than harm imo

plaggy terry says...
12:37pm Mon 20 Oct 08

I was kidding.

moleculeman says...
1:05pm Mon 20 Oct 08

I agree with Terry. Not about frying kids from Chappy (although the idea has some merit...) but about the fact that these people will organise their petitions and protests using the technology they're complaining about. You want phones, you get masts. I've ranted on and on about this subject each time it comes up, so I'll save my fingers now and just say this: MASTS ARE NOT DANGEROUS. The inverse square law - do you understand it? Masts in high density residential and commercial areas are low powered to provide a smaller cell coverage and thus preserve bandwidth. Go read Ben Goldacre on electrosensitivity at his website badscience.net

akuma says...
1:27pm Mon 20 Oct 08

They forget most of the kids in the schools have moblies, and that they get a daily dose 100 times more massive every time they put it to there ear or send a text.

Smiler says...
2:01pm Mon 20 Oct 08

plaggy terry wrote:
AND I bet the same idiots whinging,probably use 02 0r vodaphone and would benefit from an increased reception of mobile signal. Wont do any harm anyway.and who cares if some scroats from chappy get their brains fried.Could do more good than harm imo
I will try not to get into a heated debate over the generalisation made in this comment. but if these masts are safe (which i think they are) how would they fry their brains?

I don't think anyone on the estate is ojecting to the mast, It is the school and the folk who live outside the estate.


Funkybazz says...
2:31pm Mon 20 Oct 08

Can I have one in my back garden - my mobile signal is atrocious. You have to go to the bottom of the garden with your hand in the air to get a signal.

Nice little earner (rub hands together)- being paid an annual fee for having a mast.

Smiler says...
3:09pm Mon 20 Oct 08

Funkybazz wrote:
Can I have one in my back garden - my mobile signal is atrocious. You have to go to the bottom of the garden with your hand in the air to get a signal. Nice little earner (rub hands together)- being paid an annual fee for having a mast.
It doesn't work like that!

My father has an Orange mast at his place of work, he can't get an Orange signal. If he goes 100yds down the road he gets full signal.

bjb says...
6:23pm Mon 20 Oct 08

Fellow commentators please be aware that supporting a commercial organisation against any whinging group of NIMBY's will most probably lead to the comments on this story being removed, as happened on two previous Elvington airport expansion stories.

Faith says...
8:01pm Mon 20 Oct 08

I live in chaplefields and have 2 children and do not appreciate the comments about the area I live in.
I do not see why these masts need to be placed in any residential areas there are plenty of industrial parks around york where they will not give people cause for concern.
I will be objecting to the mast as will many people in chaplefields.

York1900 says...
9:57pm Mon 20 Oct 08

The trouble with RF damage it do's not show for decades and then it's to late to do anything about

Seadog says...
10:25pm Mon 20 Oct 08

Whilst I respect moleculeman's exegesis on the Inverse Square Rule, I'm sure I've encountered equally credible authorities stating an opposite case. Ben Goldacre aside (and as an avid Guardian reader I have to take him seriously!) I'm still inclined to take the view that - since the scientific jury is still out - it's better top be safe than sorry. It's also a mistake to assume that "everyone" has a mobile phone: I know many who don't.


Coun Ken King Coun Ken King

Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses