News RSS Feed



Thurrock Gazette JOIN THE DEBATE BY ADDING YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE STORIES

Registration to post comments only takes a few seconds. Click here to go to the registration page.



Two phone masts planned for Chafford Hundred

4:37pm Thursday 4th February 2010


A RESIDENT from Chafford Hundred is urging everyone in the town to join together and fight the erection of two phone masts.

Tracy Law found out two days ago O2 and Vodafone are preparing to errect a 41 foot phone mast on Warren Lane, yards from her home.

When she looked into the plans Mrs Law then discovered another phone mast is planned just under a mile and a half away in Fenner Road.

Mrs Law, 46, is particularly concerned the masts are 3G, not just the standard mobile phone masts, as she has heard they emit higher radiation.

She said: “This is something that everyone in Chafford Hundred should be worried about, but the council has only sent out letters to a handful of residents so not everyone knows about it.

“If we don’t sit up and do something about this then it will be too late.”

Among the concerns are that the phone masts will have health implications, be an eyesore, and will affect residents being able to sell their houses.

Because the masts are under 15 metres tall the phone company does not need planning permission to put them up, however, Thurrock Council can still block the masts if it has concerns about appearance and siting issues.

Residents have until February 10 to register their objection with the council.

Tory ward councillors Tunde Ojetola and Neil Rockliffe are supporting the campaign against the masts.

There will be a meeting about the plans during Cllr Rockliffe’s surgery at the Drake Community Centre, on Drake Road, on Saturday at 11.30am.

Thurrock Council spokesperson Andy Lever said: “The telecoms providers have to submit their application for masts to the planning authority for ‘prior approval’ according to planning law and must be accompanied by an International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection certificate.

“These are not planning applications where the authority can refuse permission, but the authority can consider siting and appearance issues. It cannot consider such things as health grounds, property values etc.”

A campaign website is being launched today at www.nomastsonchafford.org.

If you would like to help out with the campaign email info@nomastsonchafford.org.


More News stories

Your Say YourThurrock

Mattster, Grays says...
11:32pm Thu 4 Feb 10

We await the the sister website "no moblie reception on chafford".

When will the NIMBY's learn that if you want your lovely iphone etc... then you need to have the infrastructure to enable it to work.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

diggerdave, Chadwell says...
10:19am Fri 5 Feb 10

thats okay mattster let them have it your frontroom and let it fry your brain

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Mattster, Grays says...
2:02pm Fri 5 Feb 10

diggerdave wrote:
thats okay mattster let them have it your frontroom and let it fry your brain
Are they planning to install this in the front room of this ladys house?

Get a grip.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Freddy K, Grays says...
2:36pm Fri 5 Feb 10

Interesting facts regarding Mobile Masts:

"The mast communicates on a two-way basis with a set of phones in its zone. There are typically a dozen channels and four time-slots, so in effect the actual total power is fifty times that of a phone. But because of the inverse-square law, the bottom line is this: If your head is seven times further away from a mobile phone mast than it is from a phone, you are being bombarded by more radiation from the phone than from the mast!

So, if you are right underneath a mobile phone mast in a school playground, you are probably 40ft from the mast aerial, but if you use a mobile phone anywhere at all, you've got the phone right near your head, which is very considerably nearer than 7 times.

So, if phone masts are dangerous, then using a mobile phone is reckless and lethal."

So I assume that these people who are complaining about the health aspects rather than the aesthetics of a mast near their homes do not own or use a mobile?

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

nomastsonchafford, Chafford Hundred says...
2:55pm Fri 5 Feb 10

To clarify any misunderstanding.

This is not a crusade to eliminate all Masts from the landscape as we all want to enjoy the benefits of technology. However, we do need to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of local residents are not compromised to the point where we do not feel safe to live in our own homes.

This is about working together to find solutions acceptable to all stakeholders.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

OckendonPaul, ockendon says...
3:11pm Fri 5 Feb 10

Will anybody tempted to post about "safety and wellbeing" please read and try to understand Freddy K's post first. He is spot-on.
Inverse square law can be googled for those who aren't familiar with it (whish will understandably be most people)

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

rocket1, chafford says...
3:25pm Fri 5 Feb 10

everyone wants a mobile but no one wants a mast near their home,mobile masts should only be put near where poor people live,that would be a lot easier because they are less skilled at protesting.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Mattster, Grays says...
3:26pm Fri 5 Feb 10

nomastsonchafford wrote:
To clarify any misunderstanding. This is not a crusade to eliminate all Masts from the landscape as we all want to enjoy the benefits of technology. However, we do need to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of local residents are not compromised to the point where we do not feel safe to live in our own homes. This is about working together to find solutions acceptable to all stakeholders.
Unfortunately CH has been overdeveloped to such an extent that it would be hard to find somewhere to put the mast that wouldnt be objected to.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Mattster, Grays says...
3:49pm Fri 5 Feb 10

nomastsonchafford wrote:
To clarify any misunderstanding. This is not a crusade to eliminate all Masts from the landscape as we all want to enjoy the benefits of technology. However, we do need to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of local residents are not compromised to the point where we do not feel safe to live in our own homes. This is about working together to find solutions acceptable to all stakeholders.
Looking at the website i see no other alternative if you want the network coverage. Noticing that one of the masts will be placed near Devonshire Road i fear this is simply an excercise in the same NIMBYism that is currently keeping the lorries off that relief road.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

rocket1, chafford says...
5:09pm Fri 5 Feb 10

theres already a big mast at the old telephone exchange halfway down devonshire road,i;m surprised they need another one so close-by.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

rocket1, chafford says...
5:19pm Fri 5 Feb 10

what they mean is they want the masts put just off of chafford 100,so they still get reception but its not in their back yard.this looks like a job for SUPERMAN aka earnshaw palmer.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

janiceysear, grays says...
11:13pm Fri 5 Feb 10

When microwave ovens first were available for home use, there was all the panic about radiation ("don't stand infront over the oven when in use etc"). Now, who doesn't have a microwave in their home. You want the convenience of mobile phone, so you must put up with the masts.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

SaveOurStanford, Stanford says...
1:15am Sat 6 Feb 10

Tracy Law I assume you and your Family, Friends, Neighbours or anyone else in Chav100 Dont Own Mobile Phones Then ? Hmm thats what i though! You allready have a Spaghetti of Extreme High Voltage Cables over your heads going to the Old Chalk Pits Shop and you want Thousand of People to Live in This Worthless Quarry not to have a MobilePhone Signal. from what i understand you need the 3G Despratly as Wired Broadband speeds are aprox 1mb and there are not enough Landline exchanges to cope with the amount of lemmings moving into the Over Populated Pits.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Mattster, South Stifford says...
12:32am Sun 7 Feb 10

If you havent yet read the petition on the campaign website then i recommend it, its pure comedy. Loads of ignorant NIMBYS (typical C100 residents) suggesting that the mast should be nowhere near homes - well to any of those reading this article i suggest you read up on how mobile networks operate. I wonder how many of these people have a home wi-fi network? Do you put your router at the bottom of you garden? Didnt think so.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Ickymay7, Thurrock says...
2:50pm Sun 7 Feb 10

Cushty, old Dell Boy would say, bring it on, Warren Lane is a perfect site to install the new Phone Mast that would benefit us all, by the way, why did Thurrock’s Chafford Hundred Conservative councillors not consider a roundabout at the junction of Drake road and Devonshire road, Open up Devonshire road to all HGV’s and relieve London roads residents of over cowed traffic and congestion, take note, election time soon.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Eddie, aveley says...
8:15am Mon 8 Feb 10

you know the funny thing about phone masts, nearly all petrol stations have them, they also have a mast to transmit credit card data, i.e to check for frauduent use and satelite dishes for lotto transmission. yet when we go to a petrol station we musnt use our phones because they may cause an explosion. Unfortunatly we live in a world obsessed with technoligical advancement, I think masts are something we will all have to endure if we want the benefits, I personally cant see a danger from them, they are ugly yes, but I think we are in more danger from the phones themselves and maybe even bluetooth earpieces, but I have used mobiles for 21 years and bluetooth for maybe 5 or so, but from my constant ramblings on the gazette site maybe you will think my brain is already scrambled.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

rocket1, chafford says...
6:10pm Mon 8 Feb 10

this must be about the highest bit of ground on chafford. where warren lane meets clockhouse lane,its also got very few houses nearby,i would say it has been carefully chosen and is the ideal place for a mast.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

wyshcf, grays says...
10:06pm Mon 8 Feb 10

Eddie & Freddy K - get up to date on your research. You will discover that a number of countries have now banned these masts from residential areas. Also the fact that the UK has one of the highest emission rates for these masts obviously is of no concern to you. As for the petrol stations – different type of transmitter

Mattster - just the type of typical ignorant comments one would expect from a person who comes across as jealous. As for being a NIMBY get your facts right - how many years have you spent raising money for children’s and cancer charities, helping the homeless and giving back to the community. You are a typical armchair critic without a clue about the people you are putting down

SaveourStanford – great way to gain support by putting down another issue. Shows a lot of intelligence and will gain you a lot of supporters...I don't think

Diggerdave – take it you are welcoming the new homes development in Chadwell – hope you enjoy the NIMBYs

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Mattster, South Stifford says...
11:26pm Mon 8 Feb 10

wyshcf wrote:
Eddie & Freddy K - get up to date on your research. You will discover that a number of countries have now banned these masts from residential areas. Also the fact that the UK has one of the highest emission rates for these masts obviously is of no concern to you. As for the petrol stations – different type of transmitter Mattster - just the type of typical ignorant comments one would expect from a person who comes across as jealous. As for being a NIMBY get your facts right - how many years have you spent raising money for children’s and cancer charities, helping the homeless and giving back to the community. You are a typical armchair critic without a clue about the people you are putting down SaveourStanford – great way to gain support by putting down another issue. Shows a lot of intelligence and will gain you a lot of supporters...I don't think Diggerdave – take it you are welcoming the new homes development in Chadwell – hope you enjoy the NIMBYs
Sorry to bust your bubble but i wouldnt live on chafford if you paid me, so jealous? Fraid not, i just dislike the selfish attitude of the vocal minority spoiling things for the wider community which, for example, keeps HGV's off the relief road that was built to take them away from london road and inches from kiddies heads as they walk to school.

Your facts on masts are plain wrong. The UK has a limit of 62dBm on the masts being proposed whilst countries including Finland, Sweden, Germany and France have no upper limit whatsoever. The masts have to be near communities as thats where the people with the phones are, quite simple really.

I applaud your charity work but that is irrelevant in this debate. As for health concerns? Please tell me one case of cancer caused by a phone mast? A fair few number of signatures on the petition site affect on house prices as the objection to the masts - i at least admire the honesty of those signees as this is what its all about.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Freddy K, Grays says...
12:00pm Tue 9 Feb 10

WYSHCF, please take a look at the facts and figures goncerning radio mast and transmitters and their effects on the human body in regards to cancer, you will find that there is very limited evidence of any link between the two, in fact The World Health Organization, based upon the consensus view of the scientific and medical communities, has stated in the past that cancer is unlikely to be caused by cellular phones or their base stations and that reviews have found no convincing evidence for other health effects.

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

SaveOurStanford, Stanford says...
1:45am Fri 19 Feb 10

To wyshcf, grays says... Re Your Rude Feedback.
Your Realy Are Missing the point like Sultanas out of the fruitcake.
Why do you Object! Do you and millions in Grays & C100 not have Mobile Phones? YOU NEED THEESE MAST BADDLY !
Your Landlines are Over Subscribed & Internet speed is currently DEAD.
You have to move Fowards and allow this new Tehcnology to improve our lifes and you can stop trying to invent the wheel as its allready been done, Get a grip and move on.
p.s Correct i am Very Intelligent and No i am not looking for supporters

Report this post »    Register/Sign In »

Comments are closed on this article.



Local Advertisers

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »