Betreff: Help needed for Leicester tower block
Von: Mastsmastsanity
Datum: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:35:12 EDT


Dear Sandi,
 
Sorry to hear Chris Maile is so ill. I have sent the following email to Stuart Winter. I attached a couple of pieces of evidence - Cherry on Melatonin; symptoms in a Coleshill school and some German evidence.
Best regards,
 
Gill
 
Re: The Leicester tower block where it is proposed to place a mast above residents.
 
Dear Mr. Winter,
 
I would advise you that there is incontrovertible proof that emissions from masts have a deleterious effect upon human and animal health.
 
The effects were found in Russia in the 1930s since when they have made every effort to protect the public and ensure that they are not only not sufffering pain and damage to eyes; ears and hearing and chromosomes etc but that they are able to live in ease and comfort in their own homes and not to be irradiated by microwaves in their factories. Scientific tests in Schwarzenberg proved effects found there for many years and resulted in the Transmitter which caused them being decommissioned. Emissions in Russia are strictly monitored and kept at safe levels - this is not the case in our country.
 
Unfortunately the Western powers are not listening and proceed to irradiate us and force us to live in close proximity to these painful emissions. Residents in my village, 14 metres from an Orange mast have suffered chronic insomnia and headaches; earache, tinnitus and hearing loss; sore, irritated, bloodshot eyes; nausea and vertigo; ulcerated mouths and throats; nose bleeds; rashes and of course depression.
 
In spite of putting up protective material, symptoms have recently worsened. They have now been suffering for four years and this kind of suffering is found near several masts in Dunstable and Luton - as well as all over the country. Eventually, when the Government listens and carries out tests in people's homes instead of spending astronomic amounts on laboratory tests, there will be many law suits for compensation for suffering, deaths of loved ones and devalued property.
 
Please find attached Dr. Neil Cherry's document on the inhibition of the hormone Melatonin by emissions. I have a great deal more proof, as the same thing happened in America - I am not surprised that many  American men are becoming infertile, as this is one of the many side effects.
 
If you have any say in the matter, please do not put the health of these residents in jeopardy by placing a mast/masts on top of their flats. if you do, watch out for the above symptoms, because they will appear!
Yours sincerely,
 
Mrs. Gillian Lyden

Datum: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:02:42 EDT
An: Mastsmastsanity

 I am really concerned about Elizabeth House, Leicester, and the people who are living there, one of whom called the advice line. It is 25 floors high with multi masts on the roof (one with 12 antennae) and two TETRA masts nearby. There is a new application in for an 02 6 antenna 3G. When Phil Hendy rang me he was almost out of time to put in objection letters and he has no phone or computer. I wrote an objection letter and posted it to him so he could get support for it from other residents.

  He suffers from the sleep disruption and many other things, but fights on.  He collected 100 signatures from the 150 residents for the planning objection letter, but 

I have learnt that the objection letter I wrote is not enough.  I have gone to David and Chris Maile to find some way to make new representation, but Phil is too ill now to collect more signatures.  I have written to ask if this last objection point can be included with the 100 signatures, but do not know if it will be allowed.

So I thought if I could get others to send it in on their behalf we might swing it.

 I would be grateful if some of you could send in something based on, or the exact copy of what I have posted below and send it to stuart.winter@leicester.gov.uk.

 

I know this is not the norm, but this block of flats is not the norm, nor is planning the norm anymore, and there are lots of sick people here. I would be very grateful as the local rag diluted it all in the PR sent to them by Mast Sanity.

Sandi

 

Here is the planning wording.

 

Ref: Planning Application No. 20051122  02 (UK) Ltd 6 antennae pole and cabinets on the roof of  Elizabeth House, London Road, Leicester LE2 0QP

 

I would like this application refused on the grounds of intensity of use in a residential area; the adverse effect to the amenity of the locality; and possibly on the grounds of conflict of policy.

 

 Elizabeth House lies alongside Victoria Park, which is a protected conservation area.  Two of the existing masts are already visible to passers-by, residents of the block, and from Victoria Park. They are described by some people as an eyesore.

To add more masts would create further clutter and ugliness to the visual aspect of this predominant block of flats, and therefore to the neighbourhood, part of which is a conservation area.

Even if the proposed 02 masts are mounted at the rear of the building, some of them will still be very visible from Victoria Park, breaking the natural eye-line of Elizabeth House, the sky line, and the panoramic view.

Any extension or increase in the clutter on the roof will have a dramatic effect upon the skyline, and both the medium and long term view of the building takes away from the amenity of, and the general well-being of, residents in the area and visitors to Victoria Park.

 

Whilst a single, or even two installations might be acceptable to any given location, the increase to a third or fourth, or more, can effectively be the straw that breaks the camel's back. 

PPG8 para 14 makes it clear that visual intrusion is an important question in the siting of masts, and para 20 states "Authorities will need to consider the cumulative impact upon the environment of additional antennas sharing a mast or masts sharing a site"

A clear policy of a need, whilst on the one hand to reduce the number of sites, but on the other that it is not a question of forever piling on the installation after installation, but that some cumulative effect will be a legitimate ground for a refusal of an application.

The general thrust of PPG8 is that of finding the best environmental solution on a case by case basis, therefore in this particular case there is strong evidence to suggest that further installations would be inappropriate due to the considerable negative impact on the amenity of the area and in the general well-being of residents in the area and visitors to Victoria Park. It is abundantly clear that the existence of any additional masts on this building will cause considerable long term stress and anxiety amongst the residents and in so doing will have a significant and unacceptable effect on the amenity.