Mobile phone masts

THERE is no gain without pain, goes the saying. In the case of mobile phones, that is certainly proving to be the case.

We all use them (or at least, most of us do). They are a convenient and indispensable part of daily life.

Not many of us, however, are happy at the prospect of a 50ft mobile phone mast springing up next to our house.

It's not just that these masts are ugly. There are real, and unresolved, questions about exactly how safe they are. It has been suggested at various times that radio waves emitted by masts could contribute to everything from epileptic seizures to headaches and nosebleeds, with children being most vulnerable.

Nobody knows for sure that the radiation from masts is harmful to health, says Harrogate MP Phil Willis, chairman of the House of Commons all party mobile communications group. The worrying thing is that nobody knows for sure that it isn't, either.

"We simply do not know whether this technology is dangerous to health or not," he says.

Which is why the Liberal Democrat MP is so furious about a recent Court of Appeal ruling affecting three schools in his constituency.

When mobile phone companies applied to put up a mast within 400 yards of Woodfield Community Primary School, St Robert's Primary School and Granby High School, Harrogate council - after protests from parents - refused to give the mast planning permission, citing health grounds. The companies appealed, but a public inquiry upheld the council's refusal on the grounds there was insufficient reassurance the mast would cause "no material harm to the children's health".

Undeterred, the companies took the case to court. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott supported the council, but the judge decided in favour of the phone companies.

Mr Prescott appealed - but the Court of Appeal upheld the judge's decision, and ruled that planners should only be allowed to consider "perceived health risks" of mobile phone masks in exceptional circumstances. Being sited next to a school wasn't considered exceptional enough.

According to Mr Willis, the Court of Appeal decision opens the door for an "explosion" of mobile phone masts to be put up near schools around the country during the next few years. Estimates vary, but one report in a national newspaper recently estimated that there could be as many as 8,000 new masts springing up in the next three years as mobile companies seek to extend their "third generation" or 3G networks.

Mobile phone companies insist the masts are safe. The Mobile Operators Association (MOA), which represents companies, issued a statement welcoming the Court of Appeal judgement. It stressed that all operators had to supply local authorities with a "certificate of compliance" for each new mast, demonstrating that it met international safety guidelines.

"An independent audit carried out by Ofcom during the past three years has confirmed that radio wave emissions measured at schools are small fractions of the international ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) health and safety guidelines," the statement said. "At more than 350 sites measured, the highest reading was 279 times below the guidelines."

All very reassuring, if you accept the international guidelines have assessed the health risk correctly. But how can they have done, if we still don't really know what those risks are?

The Department of Health itself points to the Ofcom audit which, it says, reveal that exposure levels from masts range from "hundreds to millions of times" below the international guidelines.

"The weight of evidence does not suggest that radio frequency exposure causes cancer or any other health effect below guideline levels," said a DoH spokesman, before adding that "continued research is needed".

It sure is: which is why the Government, jointly funded by industry, has commissioned a £7.4 million research programme to increase understanding of the possible health effects of mobile phones.

Why spend that money if there aren't any concerns?

The health argument will continue to rage until research can demonstrate one way or the other that radiation from mobile phone masts is or is not harmful.

In the meantime, those who live near masts, or whose children go to schools near them, will continue to exist in a state of uncertainty, and even fear.

As people such as Geoff Hurst can testify, that uncertainty in itself can be hugely damaging.

Geoff runs a small holiday cottage business in Osbaldwick and fears that a mobile phone mast that T-Mobile want to put up nearby could ruin his business.

"If people, especially young people with young children, know there is one of them near a holiday cottage, I don't think they will pay to visit, because they would be frightened stiff," he says.

Geoff's plight highlights one of the most worrying aspects of the spread of mobile phone masts - the seeming powerlessness of ordinary people, and even local authorities, to stop them.

Under planning regulations, mobile phone masts up to 15 metres in height (that's almost 50 feet) can be put up without the need for planning permission at all. All the operators are required to do is give "prior notification" to a council of their intention to put up a mast.

The council then has just 56 days within which to comment on the siting and design of the mast. If it doesn't respond within this deadline, the operator can go ahead.

Masts above 15 meters do need planning permission - but planners are excluded from taking into account health concerns or the likely effect on property prices. Only the design, siting and appearance of the mast can be considered.

Ann Reid, executive member for planning on City of York Council, admits that the situation is "not ideal". The 56 day rule in particular makes it difficult for the council to raise concerns. Often, by the time a possible concern about a mast had been identified, there was no time left to do anything about it.

It is the health aspects that particularly concern Phil Willis. The Harrogate MP is furious that there seems to be no mechanism by which the possible health effects of a mast can be taken into consideration when deciding whether to allow a mast to be erected.

He believes the Government should have challenged the mobile phone companies further in the case of the three Harrogate schools, by appealing to the House of Lords.

And he thinks that having failed to do so, it should act quickly now, by amending planning guidance.

The essence of the Harrogate case was that under existing planning guidance the possible health effects of mobile phones cannot be taken into account - therefore Harrogate council was legally in breach of planning guidance when it attempted to do so, says Mr Willis.

That being the case, the MP says, the Government should amend planning guidance quickly, so the health effects can be taken into consideration.

"There was nothing to stop the Government, following the Court of Appeal decision, from saying 'the law is not clear, we will write a law,"' he says. "All they have to do is issue new guidelines."

He has doubts whether they will do that - pointing out that the Government received £22.5 billion from mobile phone operators for their 3G licences, and wouldn't want to risk operators trying to claw some of that back if they felt they weren't being able to extend their networks as they would like.

A spokesperson for John Prescott's office insisted the possibility of amending planning guidelines had not been ruled out.

Mr Prescott had not taken the Harrogate case to the Law Lords because it was felt that, on a purely legal basis, an appeal was unlikely to be successful, she said.

However, the Court of Appeal decision would be carefully considered once a full transcript of the hearing was available, she said, to see whether there were any "policy implications" (code for "does it reveal a gap in the planning guidance that needs to be plugged"). "A decision will then be taken on appropriate action in the light of the judgement," said the spokeswoman.

How ever, there doesn't appear to be much sense of urgency. And until, and unless, the Government does look at tightening up on planning guidance, says Mr Willis, local people concerned about mobile phone masts should be ready to use their pester power.

They should badger their local authorities to demand better consultation by companies on where masts should be sited, he says - and they should badger the deputy prime minister Mr Prescott to demand planning guidelines be changed.

Nobody denies there are huge benefits in mobile phone technology, he says. All he wants is to be certain that technology is introduced sensitively and safely.

He has the same level of concern about the health implications of radio waves from phone masts as he does about passive smoking, he says.

For a long time, people were accused of scare-mongering about passive smoking, before scientists finally revealed there was a problem. "We should learn from that," he adds.

Experts agree that the risk from phone masts, if there is one, is considerably less than that from using a mobile phone.

They also point out, however, that you have the choice about whether or not you use a mobile. If a mast is put up near your home or your child's school, you have no such choice.

Possible health risks of radio waves from phone masts, identified by Dr Gerard Hyland of the University of Warwick in a paper in medical journal The Lancet in November 2000, included:

- Increased frequency of seizures among children with epilepsy

- Headaches

- Nosebleeds

Other scientists have warned mobile phone masts could affect the immune system.

The Mobile Operators Association stresses that radio wave emissions at schools are hundreds of times below international health and safety guidelines.

The Government agrees with this claim, and points to the 2000 Stewart Report which concluded that "exposures to radiofrequency radiation below guidelines do not cause adverse health effects".

Nevertheless, the Government says, it takes concerns about possible health effects seriously - which is why it has commissioned a £7.4 million research programme.

Updated: 11:13 Tuesday, December 21, 2004