Europe
Below is a précis of our battle for justice in the European Parliament:-
PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
ACCOUNT OF THE PROBLEM
We feel our Fundamental Human and Civil Rights have been violated, by the way a piece of legislation, " Schedule 2, part 24 Class A " of the " Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988" has been used, misunderstood and interpreted, by The British Government and Local Authorities, to allow Mobile Telephone Companies, to erect a series of 15 Metre High Masts, with associated additional equipment, at the expense of the visual aspect of the Environment and in some cases, like ours, devaluing an asset, namely our house and our chief leisure activity and hobby our garden, so much so as to making it possibly worthless as a saleable commodity and also giving us great concern and anxiety, for our health and welfare, by living in the close proximity, of equipment emitting Electromagnetic Radiation, we have resided in this house since 1983. Keeping it in a state of good repair and relaxing in our leisure pursuit the large garden.
We contacted our Local Councillor the night the mast was erected and the Council Planning Dept. the next day. The Senior Planning (Enforcement) Officer Mrs. S. Merison, came up to visit. She appeared to be horrified at the sight which she found, took some photographs and went away. Next day she rang us to say there was nothing the Council could do. We asked for this and the reasons why to be put in writing. A reply came from Mr. A. T. Jeyes Chief Development Control Officer on 9 August 1994, setting out the Councils position. Not satisfied with this reply we contacted the Mayor of Tamworth to complain, and were duly sent forms for us to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman. This we did, sending a letter and an official form to him. We also sent out letters for help in our situation to Mr. John Gummer the Secretary of State for the Environment, The Health and Safety Executive and our M.E.P. Mr Philip Whitehead.
We have now lost the privacy of our house and garden, for when workmen from "Orange" come to work on the mast, as they did in June 1996 and December 2000, they climb up the mast changing equipment and during this time, they look down into our rear bedroom, bathroom, lounge and kitchen. This can be viewed in the photograph taken of them in the mast Horrors section of this site. We do not know how often this practice will be repeated during the life of the mast, but live in the hope it will be never again.
1/ We are just perfectly innocent victims of a man with a yard he stores timber in, subletting a small area of it to a telecommunications company, to obtain an annual ground rent. (Incidentally he himself lives 4 kilometres from the yard).
2/ A telephone company whose adverts on T.V. Say it cares for people and the environment, but has shown a complete disregard for people and the visual environmental impact.
3/ A Local Authority which says it did not understand the legislation at the time, and a Government which passed the legislation with complete disregard for any consequences such as: -
1. The right to be informed without any ridiculous time scale.
2. The right to object.
3. The right to appeal if planning permission is granted (As Orange would have been able to if it had been turned down by the Local Authority).
4. There is no right of compensation for people affected. (If these things must go up in these places for progress, then the people affected should be fully compensated or have the right to receive the value of the asset which has been blighted or move to new one not blighted). This should happen now as prices vary up and down and loss could be greater in years to come, not to mention any health risks that may become evident to people involved in living by it.
The above we believe completely violates ours and others Fundamental Human and Civil Rights and we look to you for a judgement on this.
With perseverance we have managed to gain a lot of support from others in the Country, including MP’s, MEP’s and numerous others who are similarly affected, who have contacted their MP’s and MEP’s to add weight to the petition. As a result the petition was again on the agenda shown below and will be raised again shortly:-
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
PE/XVII/OJ/01-69
COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS
MEETING
on Monday, 22 January 2001 at 3 p.m.
and Tuesday, 23 January 2001 at 9 a.m.
Rue Wiertz
Brussels
DRAFT AGENDA
Tuesday, 23 January, at 9 a.m.
9.30 a.m.
Environment and public health
Rapporteur : Mrs Mathieu
20.
Petition No 45/97 by Mr and Mrs PETITIONERS (British) on the environmental impact of radio transmitting antennas
PE 226.279/rév.II
FdR 424089
The below item was an account of the progress so far of the petition:-
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS
Notice to members
SUBJECT: Petition No. 45/97, by Mr and Mrs Petitioners (British), on the environmental impact of radio transmitting antennas
I. Summary of the petition:
The petitioners state that they have suffered physically and economically because of a radio transmitting antenna with microwave dishes erected close to their home and want the European Parliament to investigate whether antennas of this kind pose a threat to the environment and to people living near to them. The petitioners further state that they have been awarded compensation by the National Ombudsman Service for council maladministration, as well as strong support from people in a similar situation, after their case was reported in the media.
INFORMATION: - The petitioners have submitted extensive documentation of their communication with various authorities and information on safety regulations.
- Mr Phillip Whitehead, MEP, has given the petitioners his support.
- The petitioners have given their agreement to the publication and public examination of the petition.
II. Declared inadmissible on 15 May 1997; reopened on 13 October 1997 on the basis of further information from the petitioner. The Commission was asked for information on admissibility.
III. The reply from the Commission, received on 11 March 1998 reads:
Public concern about the possible effects on human health associated with exposure to non-ionising radiation, including electromagnetic fields in the proximity of radio frequency transmitting or receiving antennas increased in recent years. The expansion of the telecommunications industry has led to an increase in the number of transmission masts erected, throughout Europe. The density of these masts is growing rapidly and their
conspicuousness has increased public awareness of possible health effects. The high visibility of this kind of masts is perceived as a threat to human health and as a factor leading to depreciation of property values. Health concerns were initially stimulated by the publication of epidemiological studies that suggested an apparent increase in risk of cancer associated with living close to high voltage power lines.
Since then, a number of international and national radiation protection agencies have examined the epidemiological and biological evidence linking exposure to electromagnetic fields and cancer. These have generally concluded that scientific data to-date do not provide evidence for causality. For instance, the recent results from the first Finnish nation-wide study on the relation of residential exposure to magnetic fields and cancer in adults[1], found no increase in the risk of overall cancer, and suggested that typical residential exposure is not related to cancer in adults; the possibility, however, of an increase in risk at higher magnetic field levels, or in more specific cancer subtypes cannot be excluded on the basis of this study.
Regrettably, reports and statements from health protection bodies such as the UK’s National Radiological Protection Board and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiological Protection are often quoted out of context or misinterpreted by individuals who perceive themselves as affected. This is why the perception of risk by the public and risk communication from scientists and policy makers to the public is of utmost importance. To this end, the Commission supported a survey on possible health implications of subjective symptoms and electromagnetic fields which was presented at an International Seminar on risk perception and communication and its application to electromagnetic fields in October 1997 in Vienna. A copy will be sent to the Petitions Committee.
From the Community’s public health’s perspective, the following can be pointed out to the petitioner:
1. The Commission, to put things into perspective, published at the beginning of 1996 a report entitled, 'Non-ionising radiation: sources, exposure and health effects'. This report reviews scientific evidence as regards exposure to electromagnetic fields and concludes that at present no conclusions can be drawn about cancer induction or promotion. As regards thermal effects such as electrocution or skin burns, these are well established, and are the basis of regulatory requirements at national and Community level. The Commission has already submitted a proposal for a Council directive on the protection of workers against the risks from physical agents, including non-ionising radiation[2].
2. In October 1995, the Commission asked a group of experts to prepare a proposal for a research agenda into the possible health effects related to the use of mobile telephony. The group, consisting of experts in the field of biology, neurophysiology, epidemiology, physics, radiation protection and telecommunications engineering, concluded in September 1996 that research published to date worldwide did not provide evidence for either a positive or negative link between exposure to the emissions from mobile phones or from telecommunications base stations and 'athermal' effects on human health; epidemiological studies hitherto are considered to be sparse and incomplete and results remain inconclusive.
3. As public health is an important requirement in the formulation and implementation of Community policy, the Commission considers the assessment and elimination of possible health risks that might be associated with radiotelephony as a matter of priority. The Commission is at present giving consideration to the experts’ recommendations with a view to deciding on the possibility of launching a pertinent research programme in the field.
4. Some Member States have already adopted provisions for the protection of the general public from electromagnetic fields.
With respect to the situation described by the petitioner, particularly as regards depreciation of property, the Commission has to point out that questions of land-use planning come under the competence of Member States. Aware of public concerns, the Commission proposed a Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes which are part of a town and country planning decision-making process. The telecommunications sector will be included in such a strategic environmental impact assessment procedure. (COM (96) 511 final)
IV. Written confirmation of oral information given by the Commission at the meeting of 30 November/1st December 1998 during which examination of the petition was concluded, received on 23 March 1999, reads :
1. On 11 June 1998, the Commission proposed a draft Council Recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields 0Hz-300GHz3. The aim is to provide for a commonly agreed framework concerning a high level of protection against exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields, based on a set of basic restrictions and reference levels developed by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection.
2. This text has been sent by the Council to the European Parliament for opinion, and is being examined in parallel within the relevant Council group.
V. Petition reopened on 23 February 2000; Commission asked to provide information. Reply received on 12 October 2000:
1. On 12 July 1999 the Council adopted a recommendation1 aimed at limiting the exposure of the public to electromagnetic fields 0Hz to 300GHz. The text lays down the limits of exposure that must be respected in order to protect the public from the effects of non-ionising radiation on health. These basic restrictions and reference levels are based on the scientifically established effects of this radiation. Indeed, this recommendation is based on the best available scientific data, provided to the Commission by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and endorsed by the Commission's Scientific Steering Committee.
2. Under the 5th research framework programme, in particular key action 4 (environment and health) of the 'Quality of life and management of living resources' programme, the Commission provides EUR 9 m of cofunding for scientific studies on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation and, specifically, the carcinogenic effects of waves emitted by mobile telephony systems. The results of these studies will be published in 3 to 4 years.
3. The Commission will react to any new scientific evidence of health risks connected with electromagnetic fields. The text of the recommendation provides for a review five years after its adoption. The Commission is following closely all initiatives and studies in this area.
4. The legal aspects of property depreciation are a matter for the Member States.
Following the hearing on the 23rd January 2001, we received the following letter:-
From Nino GEMELLI, Chairman of the Committee on Petitions.
Dear Mr & Mrs. Petitioners,
I would like to inform you that the Committee on Petitions continued its examination of your petition at its meeting of 22/23 January 2001, taking due account of the written and Oral information provided by the Commission of the European Communities. I am enclosing, for your information a copy of the Commission's written reply.
Following its discussion, the committee decided to ask the Commission for further information. The committee will continue its examination of your petition as soon as it is in receipt of the necessary information.
At this occasion, the committee decided also to ask for a study to the Panel STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment) of the Directorate General for Research of the European Parliament regarding the impact of radio transmitting antennas on the environment and health of citizens.
I shall keep you informed of any further action taken on your petition.
Nino GEMELLI, Chairman of the Committee on Petitions.
Enclosure: Commission reply (PE 226.279/rev)
V. Petition reopened on 23 February 2000; Commission asked to provide information. Reply received on 12 October 2000:
1. On 12 July 1999 the Council adopted a recommendation1 aimed at limiting the exposure of the public to electromagnetic fields 0Hz to 300GHz. The text lays down the limits of exposure that must be respected in order to protect the public from the effects of non?ionising radiation on health. These basic restrictions and reference levels are based on the scientifically established effects of this radiation. Indeed, this recommendation is based on the best available scientific data, provided to the Commission by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and endorsed by the Commission's Scientific Steering Committee.
2. Under the 5th research framework programme, in particular key action 4 (environment and health) of the 'Quality of life and management of living resources' programme, the Commission provides EUR 9 m of cofunding for scientific studies on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation and, specifically, the carcinogenic effects of waves emitted by mobile telephony systems. The results of these studies will be published in 3 to 4 years.
3. The Commission will react to any new scientific evidence of health risks connected with electromagnetic fields. The text of the recommendation provides for a review five years after its adoption. The Commission is following closely all initiatives and studies in this area.
4. The legal aspects of property depreciation are a matter for the Member
States.