Forum Topic

Phone Masts etc..

Just a quick point, looking through the various websites that the ICG and ICSF have I notice the same people in the photographs that are on the respective sites, which leads to believe that the two organisations are linked in some way or share the same core support. Now the ICG is protesting about the proposed erection of a phone mast near the entrance to Redlees Park, but the ICSF site is sponsored by a "The Isleworth Mobile Phone Company"!! Strikes me as a bit odd!!The ICSF the ICG will complain about phonemasts being put up while accepting sponsorship from a mobile phone company! Double standards?

Sheldon Wicks ● 7057d20 Comments

...continuing my epic catch-up on forum discussions (its good to be back - although my partner is a little frustrated I haven't yet retired for the night)......Does anyone know whether any TETRA masts for the new digital police comms system have gone up in Brentford or Isleworth? And if so what they look like?Could they be put on the top of police buildings without planning permission?  Seems like something we should be keeping an eye on as there are a lot of question marks around their health impacts.Best - Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 7043d

Redlees to Mogden..it should be possible..Have a look!COPY and PASTEhttp://www.google.com/lochp?hl=en&q=&t=k&ll=51.463446,-0.338581&spn=0.011818,0.029268&t=k

Jim Lawes ● 7054d

Why not plonk the mast in the middle of the Modgen Works...out of the way, and out of sight!!The authorities can then listen in to the Water Works conversations instead!Why infest the local landscape with any more ugly roadside furniture..when it's not perhaps neccessary.

Jim Lawes ● 7054d

Thank you Alan for that comment. All we ask is that the council remain resolute in their objection and represent us appropriately at the appeal hearing.

Andrew Sibley ● 7054d

My back garden is too small for a mobile phone mast. I doubt if my neighbours would fancy it either. If the proposed mast is wrong for the area, then opposition to it is appropriate.

Alan Sheerins ● 7054d

I was merely trying to point out to people that the reason for our objection has nothing to do with double standards as some people on this forum are sugesting. For once the ICG are actually in agreement with Hounslow Council over it's decision to refuse planning permission to T Mobile for the reasons Phil has stated.

Andrew Sibley ● 7054d

Andrew, why the aggression? Sounded like a reasonable question, to which Phil gave a reasonable answer. The jury, it seems, is still out on dangers from phone masts (or, to be accurate, the transponders and whatever that are attached to them). Some people are convinced that we will look back on this situation in the same way we look at tobacco adverts with doctors recommending different brands for 'a smoother smoke'. But as Phil points out this free-standing mast sounds like it totally out of place in its proposed location, regardless of what is put at the top of it.

Matt Harmer ● 7055d

... just a thought ... if a piece of land goes from being waste or unused to being a rental income - does the Council change its status for business rates?

Sarah Felstead ● 7055d

Perhaps Alan would like one in his back garden.

Andrew Sibley ● 7055d

Hi AlanThe mast isn't there at present and I've not seen a drawing, but the application is to erect a structure which will be nearly forty feet high and the proposed location is an open space.  Unless it is going to be shrouded by an Invisibility Cloak it will by definition be visually obstrusive, which presumably is why the London Borough of Hounslow refused the application in the first place.In my view if the local authority's decision on this particular application is overturned by the Planning Inspectorate there could be no conceivable grounds for objecting to the siting of a mobile mast anywhere ever again.

Phil Andrews ● 7055d

Is the mast in situ already? or have you seen a drawing of what it will look like?

Alan Sheerins ● 7055d

JimTowards the end of last year there was a profusion of new posters on this forum, all of whom had two things in common.  One was that they were apparently not on the electoral roll (most of them protested when challenged that they were "new to the area"), and the other was that their main interest appeared to be launching attacks on the ICG and other resident-led groups in the community.Most of them had established a "CV" for themselves by making a few other postings before unfurling the proverbial Jolly Roger.  The majority of their postings were deleted by the mods after they failed to respond to a request for further information which would have confirmed their bona fides.I would agree that we should certainly treat all comers as legitimate contributors unless it can be proved otherwise, and that hostility to the ICG or the ICSF need not in itself imply that there is a troll at work.  However, under the circumstances I believe Simon is entitled to be suspicious.

Phil Andrews ● 7056d

SheldonI do not receive sponsorship from a mobile phone supplier, so I don't understand why you are directing this question at me.However, my objection to the proposed mast is its visual effect on the local landscape, not as a mobile mast per se.  There are plenty of mobile masts in the area which are discreetly located and I have never raised an objection to these.  I don't think that by owning a mobile phone or, as in the case of the ICSF, accepting sponsorship from a mobile 'phone company disqualifies one from objecting to an inappropriate siting such as the one applied for.Are you supporting the application, and if so might I ask your reasons?  Have you been in this area long?

Phil Andrews ● 7056d

Jim thanks for pointing this out mate it is sometimes Hard to trust if People are real sometimes on here After all the false names in 2005 that Appeared.My apologies to Sheldon i didn't mean to cause offence and if I did i am VERY sorry..

Simon Anderson ● 7057d

Can you respond to the point I raised - how can you object to 'phone masts whilst accepting sponsorship from mobile 'phone suppliers?

Sheldon Wicks ● 7057d

Simon:A Forum Search reveals that Sheldon has participated in discussions of this Forum before...and so the ??? wasn't perhaps appropriate. Sheldon would seem to have an interest in Crime matters too..or so the search reveals..and so perhaps he is well qualified to make further observations ..quute rightly on the local scene.

Jim Lawes ● 7057d

Hi SheldonWelcome to the area.The ICG and ICSF do share the same core support.  It is called the Isleworth people.In precisely 22 minutes from now the ICSF will be holding a meeting to discuss all these issues, and many more besides.  Why not come along and have your say?  We are able to these days.

Phil Andrews ● 7057d

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Simon Anderson ● 7057d

And your point is?

Sheldon Wicks ● 7057d

NEW TO THIS SITE??????????????????????

Simon Anderson ● 7057d