The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
FOR THE ATTENTION OF DEPUTY ALAN BRECKON Dear Deputy Breckon,
I was amongst the small number of people who attended the meeting which Scrutiny organised at Hautlieu last night and did raise some questions from the floor which you said I should submit. In this connection, I would like to draw your attention to the e-mail which I sent to you on 6th December at "A.Breckon@gov.je" as this was ahead of the appointment of the full Panel. This e- mail really sets out the basis of my argument against mobile telecommunications masts.
I am in the unfortunate position that despite my various letters to Planning, Senators, Deputies and the Constable, the application to which I objected has been granted permission (on the first day of the end of the moratorium). Despite my invitation, no one from Planning has visited my home to discuss the matter.
As a further point and matter of interest, I have today attempted to speak with the Planning Officers due to some comments which were made last night by Richard Glover who represented Planning concerning the the location of base stations. At the meeting you will recall that he said that applications should not have an "unreasonable impact on the visual amenity". The particular mast being erected near my home would, I feel, impact unreasonably. I was unable to contact anyone at Planning (being put through to voicemails) so I contacted Airtel directly as David Watson their CEO, had visited our home to discuss the proposal for field 99.and had suggested he may be able to relocate the mast in a limited capacity. I was surprised to discover the mast had been moved a little along the horizon (kept at the same distance from our home) to reduce visual impact. No one had written to me from either Airtel or Planning to advise me of this change. Whilst this "change" does nothing to allay my concerns on a health level (after all it is still the same distance from our home and my children's bedrooms) and does little for the aesthetics, it would have been nice to know - what happened to the point that Senator Shenton highlighted from the Health Report that there should be "improved consultation ....... with the community ....."!. Additionally, I should point out, that the farmer who owns this land and who will be getting some "compensation"/rental income from the telephone company, lives remote from this field - it does not impact on his family's health or "visual amenity"!
I really feel that we have all come to this a little too late - what is to happen? After all, as I said last night, we can hardly say "thank you and goodbye" to these companies who have come to the Island in good faith, doubtless spending millions of pounds in setting up offices, etc.,having been the beneficiaries of a senseless decision to allow so many operators. As was said by another contributor last night, as members of the public, none of us can hope to overturn "expert" evidence but I think you will agree that little is conclusive in this matter. Our families are at the mercy of this situation, again as I said to you, it is simply devastating as a parent to feel that you cannot protect your children.
Yours sincerely,