Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Behind the Mast - Part 2 - Protest Required

Apparently the Ursuline College are against the planning application for a mobile telephone mast outside the school and have asked for help in challenging the application: TL/TH/07/0009.

Sister Alice Montgomery, the Headmistress has asked if concerned residents and parents would write to Thanet District Council's Development Controls Section (PO Box 9) Cecil Street, Margate, CT9 1XZ or email Planning Services with their objection within the 21 days before the application closes.

Don't forget to give your address or any objection won't be valid.

I'm emailing first, would anyone care to join me?

Simply cut and paste the text below into your email to the planning section.

Dear Sir

I wish to register my objection to the plans to position a phone mast in the Canterbury road Westgate outside the Ursuline College. Your reference TL/TH/07/0009.

Yours faithfully.

Name & Address.


Anonymous said...

Some peoples arrogance knows no bounds.

When local residents were complaining about the planning for their sports hall, the Headteachers attitude was one of who do you think you are to challange what we want. No consideration for anyone else's feelings. NOW she wants locals to support her in challanging a planning application.

Such hypocracy is beyond belief!

DrMoores said...

Regardless of the sports hall controversy, I don't like the idea of radio masts within range of schools while thecase for them remains uncertain in juvenile health terms

Anonymous said...

If the perceived case against microwave radiation is so strong, then why does the headteacher not ban mobile phones, rather than let the kids walk around with them glued to their heads!

While I can understand the time and effort going into this anti mast protest, I hope that for the sake of childrens health and well being, that the school will deal with the dangerous parking problem they have every day. The parents blocking both sides of what is a duel carriageway and pulling in and out of flowing traffic, together with the school minibus turning across oncoming traffic has already lead to several accidents.

I hope they seek parental, residential, and Thanetlife support in dealing with a real danger!

Anonymous said...

Thanetlife has taken a risky new path!

I have long been an interested reader of this site, and in the past, articles of interest and for discussion have been posted by Dr Moores, or on behalf of his readers. This has lead to impartial, open discussion.

That has now changed with this entry - "Protest Required".

The first "Behind the Mast" blog was information presented by a reader, Amy. This blog entry is asking for protest! In the past, I don't remember Thanetlife actually starting, or supporting a protest, and that is where the problem lies for the future.

Does this now mean that any reader with an objection to planning, or anything else, can expect to have their protest championed by this site, and if so, who will decide which protests are championed, and which are not!

This is a dangerous veer away from the impartiality that this site has always achieved. I hope that this is not the start of the site becoming a soapbox instead of being an open forum.

A concerned reader!

Anonymous said...

I don't see what the problem is 4.58pm.I can't speak for Dr Moores but this post starts with factual information and reports further developments and as 'Editor'he then says he is objecting and gives advice on how to object. This is a local issue to Westgate; Dr Moores is a 'Westgate man' and surely is entitled to put his viewpoint and join the campaign? This is really quite a civilised approach compared to various "Sun" campaigns or even the Gazunders more vulgar cousin the "Times" and its "Get 'em down" campaign over the Clocktower traffic lights.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4.58, I don't see any problem, no need to take this as more than face value and it doesn't need to create a precedent.
Masts near schools can't be good, like houses under power lines, and that has happened all over Thanet.
Shame someone didn't object to them too, I think they are far worse.
Too mnay planning issues get through on the nod, at least let's have some debate on them - and you don't get that unless a few people object.
This blog can be a soapbox for all of us who are concerned, the owner is a fair minded person and is prepared to let anyone have their say as long as they are polite about it.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4.58 replying:

Anon 5.55 I agree with you totally, that is why I am concerned. This site encourages debate, and the fair expression of views for and against a point.

Dr Moores is a fair, and forward thikning man, and this site has made a difference in many ways, especially in encouraging free discussion.

That is why I don't think it a wise step for the site to actively lead a campaign, however much I agree with the sentiments. Provide the information, allow debate, and then allow individuals to act as they see fit.

I speak as a great believer in this site that does not want to see outside interests proclaiming bias, however well intentioned!

Anonymous said...

anon again!

Sorry, but the TDC will do nothing against the will of the KCC. It doesn't matter how much you protest!...

Protest directly, if you must, at the KCC. Makes more sense, and you never know, they might even read it....
If they don't, sue them for wilful negligence damaging Childrens Health.
(only if the KCC ignore you and go ahead with the mast).

DrMoores said...

Sorry, I'm just publicising a request which I happen to agree with. Remember the protest against Sea Tower being knocked down or the caravan park expanding ...? If I think a protest or local issue has merit I'm happy to run with it. You shouldn't read anything else into the story. It's not a precedent!

Anonymous said...

You were fast off the mark on this matter; a parent at the school told me about it this evening having only received a letter in the post today.

DrMoores said...

Out of interest, who believes that as a Westgate resident, I shouldn't support any objection to a phone mast in close proximity to a school or even inside a school, given the unproven nature of the evidence in favour of their safety. Put another way, if you had that level of radiation concentrated inside an aircraft fuselage not many of us would choose to fly I suspect and health & Safety might not let us.

Anonymous said...

As a Westgate resident, with childrens safety in mind, are you also going to support the obvious concerns of residents regarding the dangerous parking outside the Ursuline College. Or are road accidents and traffic chaos also unproven?

PS. The cars will not be concentrated in a plane in case you were wondering!

DrMoores said...

In case you have forgotten, I already have / had addressed the whole Canterbury road parking issue some time ago as a source of road safety concern. It will be in the archives so be nice!

Anonymous said...

I must have missed that particular item, and if you have already addressed the matter of the Canterbury Road chicane, then I apologise whole heartedly for the above.

DrMoores said...

We have.. in some detail and no problem! Thanks for contributing and remindingus.

DrMoores said...

Tom King, head of the residents association makes a comment further below and I've been looking into this some more. It seems to revolve around a planning issue rather than a health issue. As the government does not forbid these masts on health grounds, all appeals have to come under planning regulations. When I find out more I'll let you know!

Tom writes....

Regarding the Ursuline mast,eigthteen months ago the Westgate and Westbrook residents association campiagned unsuccessfully to stop the installation of a mast at the junction of Westbury road and St Mildreds road because it was to be sited within a short distance of local schools of which hundreds of children passed each day,four day nurseries and social club used by young families just twenty yards away. Sir william Stewart's earlier report advised caution where young chldren were concerned and recent reports still question the complete safety of the mobile phone industry. Whilst the mobile phone is to stay,surely sensertive sites such as outside our schools should be avoided.
The health concerns of the young should come before the corporate need-or greed of the multi-nationals.