Fortwilliam Action Committee
Sample Letters of Complaint
re Planning Applications for
PHONE MASTS at GATELODGE & LANSDOWNE HOTEL
Divisional Planning Officer
Belfast Planning Office
Bedford House
16-22 Bedford Street
Belfast BT2 7FD
DearSir/Madam
Your Ref: 2224/F – 657 Antrim Road, Lowwood, Belfast
I wish to lodge an objection to the above planning application for the following
reasons:
The Lansdowne Court Hotel sits within the boundary of the Somerton Road Conservation
Area and I cannot understand how such a mast could comply with efforts to
preserve the character of the area. In fact, this application not only
contravenes each element of Policy BH12 New Development in a Conservation
Area but does it not also constitute a “change of use” (7.9 Conservation
Areas) in that no longer will 657 Antrim Road be an hotel but an hotel and
a base station?
Due to the ongoing research into the health effects of radiation from these
masts they should not be sited in residential areas until the results of
this research is known. I would urge you to apply the “precautionary
principle” as recommended by the Stewart Report – a study by 12 independent
experts commissioned by the Department of Health.
The Lansdowne/Antrim Road area is a densely populated residential district
with a very young population. Professor Sir William Stewart, a former
Government chief scientist has stated that children might be more vulnerable
to the low-level radiation emitted by masts because they have thinner skulls
and a developing nervous system. The Lansdowne Court Hotel is close
to three local schools and adjacent to a parish hall used daily for after-school
activities by local children.
BT Cellnet’s application for a mast at nearby Somerton Road (earlier this
year) was rejected by the Planning Office on “visual amenity” grounds and
yet the Lansdowne Court Hotel sits on a much higher level than the Somerton
Road site –the base station would be much higher than the surrounding buildings
and totally out of keeping with the established nature of the area.
There is insufficient scientific evidence to determine conclusively whether
the radiation from these base stations could be harmful or not to human health–
given the uncertainty surrounding the issue I believe that the subsequent
worry and stress caused by the siting of a mast near my home not only affects
my ‘peaceful enjoyment’ of my possessions (Article 1 of Protocol 1 Human
Rights Act) but in itself could be detrimental to my health.
Please consider these comments when processing this application.
Yours faithfully
Divisional Planning Officer
Belfast Planning Office
Bedford House
16-22 Bedford Street
Belfast BT2 7FD
DearSir/Madam
Your Ref: : Z/07/2310/PA: Footway opposite 669 Antrim Road, Belfast,
BT15 4EG.
I wish to lodge an objection to the above planning application for the following
reasons:
The proposed site is in the centre of a very busy area, that is, close to
apartments and houses, a dentist’s surgery and beside a bus stop used daily
by a high volume of school children on route to and from nine local schools.
Department Control Advice Note 14 lists proximity to existing properties,
both residential and commercial as a consideration that should restrict the
siting of masts.
The proposed antenna would have a clear detrimental visual impact especially
in respect of the nearby Somerton Road Conservation Area. The two equipment
cabinets would be targets for vandalism and graffiti causing a nuisance for
local residents. This proposal will detract from the nearby Conservation
Area as the mast and equipment cabinets will be clearly visible from the
Conservation Area Boundary at the Lansdowne Hotel.
The proposed site is adjacent to the Gate-Lodge (now a dentist’s surgery)
which is a listed building and would breach DCAN14 which states particular
regard should be given to the siting and appearance of new masts in proximity
to listed buildings.
Due to the ongoing research into the health effects of radiation from these
masts they should not be sited in residential areas until the results of
this research is known. I would urge you to apply the “precautionary
principle” as recommended by the Stewart Report – a study by 12 independent
experts commissioned by the Department of Health.
Insufficient scientific evidence has created a climate of confusion and uncertainty
- I believe therefore that the subsequent worry and stress caused by the
siting of a mast near my home not only affects my ‘peaceful enjoyment’ of
my possessions (Article 1 of Protocol 1 Human Rights Act) but indeed that
worry and stress in itself could be detrimental to my health.
This proposal should be subject to the full planning process – not the soon
to be revoked Prior Approval Procedure - the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article
6) requires that a “fair, impartial and independent hearing” must be given.
Please consider these comments when processing this application
Yours faithfully