Am I being nimby about phone mast !!

[orangeandpineapple7]

Hello, we already have a phone mast nearby where we live and now another is proposed but this one is 30 metres away and will be completely visible from our garden. I'm against it and so am writing to object, getting onto local council and local mp. My aibu is if I want mobile services am I unreasonable for saying not 30 metres from my house. Also has anyone manged to object successfully please and might you have any tips or how did you go about it. Thank you so much.

Yes you are being nimby but yes I would be complaining like crazy too.

I don't think it's hypocritical.

.

Why not?

We fought the planning in our village and got it thrown out. Ironically the alternative site was nearer my house but less ugly.

Well they could put them further away but then the transmitter power would need to be higher so there's still adequate signal where people want to use their phones. There's even an argument that you should want the mast to be nearer to you because your phone, ie the thing that you are holding on to, works at a lower power when there is a stronger signal so your overall exposure is lower.

I've been in this industry for decades and not one person who objects to mobile phone transmitters has a rational argument against them.

Funniest story I remember was the village where people campaigned for the mobile phone signal to be improved in the village. Mobile phone company applied for planning permission to put up a mast. So the villagers campaigned against the evil mobile phone company destroying their village by putting up a mast. You couldn't make it up.

These threads are always a treat. The OPs start off all “I know I’m being a bit unreasonable” and then wheel out the health concerns.

THERE ARE NO HEALTH RISKS FROM MASTS. NONE.

You are a pure, undiluted NIMBY.

The government ripping up planning laws should be fun. The howls on MN would be top sport, but I fear the changes will never be made. The eco-loons will scupper them.

If I'm wrong and there are no health risks then that's great news . That is my main worry . The house price worries me too but not as much . Thank you for the replies ! Have always loved Pam from gavin and stacey so not all bad there either !! And yes I know it wasnt meant as a compliment 😀

I live about 30m away from one and dont find it an issue except it's not my netwlrk so my signal is still rubbish 😫

I hate that word 'nimby'. It suggests people are wrong for craving peace and quiet! It's perfectly natural to want fields and trees and space and silence. Who wants to be surrounded by horrible rabbit hutch houses all jammed on top of one another? Some of these new build estates are disgusting. People work hard, and they deserve peace and quiet at the weekend. What's the point of struggling and saving to end up suffocated by houses and noise? You can't even escape anti-social behaviour, because these new estates always include at least a couple of 'problem families'.

It's so typical of the left to come up with a label like that. They pose as the good guys when in reality they're every bit as nasty, spiteful and sadistic as the worst right-winger. It's just the target that's different. We're in for development on a massive scale over the next five years. It makes me depressed just to think about it. And I know that many Labour supporters are rubbing their hands at the thought of the lives they're going to ruin. They love to imagine some snobby old Tory in a big house having his life turned upside down by new developments. In reality, of course, the vast majority of so-called nimbys are just ordinary people who've tried to do the right thing. They've worked hard, obeyed the law, saved their money, and bought themselves a bit of peace and quiet. Now that's going to be taken away from them. What do the left expect? Do they want us all to dance for joy?

Nothing wrong with not wanting a massive eyesore on your doorstep. Since time immomorial, those who complain the loudest and most articulately get what they want, so definitely give it a go. Rest assured that anyone in another area would not care if they shoved it onto you. You are allowed to do all you can to prevent yourself being a net "loser" in this scenario.

There has been loads of research running for years and nobody has found health effects from phone masts.

The only effect of radio frequency (RF) signals on the body is a minute heating effect. You need to be very very close to a powerful antenna (e.g. standing right next to the antenna itself, not the pole it’s mounted on) to be at any risk whatsoever. So it’s only the workers who install and maintain them who are at any risk, and that risk is controlled.

Incidentally you receive many many times the energy from your mobile phone when you’re using it, than from the antennas. And still there’s no harm because it’s a tiny amount of heat energy.

Research tracking the health of people who use mobiles very heavily has failed to find a difference in their health compared to people who don’t. There has also been research on health effects in children and none have been found.
Creds: H&S professional with very recent update training in non-ionising radiation safety including RF.

What the masts look like and the effect on house prices is another matter!

It would be great if companies could share infrastructure where possible, just from a utilising space and hardware more efficiently standpoint.

I used to run a toddler group in a church hall. People used to love the really strong reception available to them when using the building, but were then horrified when told that it was because there was an antenna for a mobile provider housed in the church tower. I thought it was a handy use of dead space, and the rent to the church helped pay the bills. Win win really.

It's so typical of the left to come up with a label like that. Except it wasn’t the left who invented it. Its earliest use seems to have been in the hazardous waste industry in the US, then it was popularised in England by Nicolas Ridley, who was the Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment.

I find it odd that everyone is on the side of the phone companies. Why shouldn’t they share masts? Why should local people have to live with an eyesore to appease commercial interests?

I am very much in favour of development but I think beauty is hugely important too. Places have to be more than just functional. They have to be pleasant for people to live in. Even the poorest of us deserve that. People become NIMBYs because they experience all the downsides and none of the advantages. Capitalism doesn’t respect that communities and places belong to people, they are not just things to be exploited.

Phone companies do share masts often.

But you need a separate set of transmitters for each phone company, so instead of two poles, each with a set of transmitters on, you might need a higher shared pole, so both sets of transmitters are at the right height to provide coverage. Each company will also need to install their own equipment cabin at the base of the mast whether there is one mast or two.

Which might not necessarily be less visually impactful and of course will still expose people to the same amount of microwave radiation as two separate masts.

In any case, many masts aren't particularly visually significant. They just look like slightly taller lamp posts that are a bit thicker at the top.

Toob turned up in our close one day (yes, out of the blue!) and dumped three huge masts in a kind of triangle in very inconvenient places (middle of pavements, top of steps), all of which were an eyesore, and with no need whatsoever for them, as fibre optic cables and other internet services are readily available in our area. Toob have form for this, they have made the local papers several times doing this, and not in a good way.

Our road banded together and complained, together, individually, and repeatedly, to Toob. Our local councillors (Lib Dem, Labour) got involved and objected. So did our MP. Finally Toob removed them.

It's highly unlikely they cause health issues - you won't get anywhere arguing on that front. We objected to the careless way they were dumped, how awful they looked, that they caused access issues, and were not necessary. I don't really care if that's NIMBY or not, and I'm happy that they are gone!

Other roads in the area were not successful. I suspect we were successful due to us all coming together, our persistence, and because all our objections were valid.

Good luck!

Toob are just the company from hell. Around here, they have conveniently been providing their ultra high speed internet down every street (which no-one I know of wants becaase we've already all got Virgin), badly digging up all the pavements, and where that doesn't work, slapping in "telegraph" poles so they can string their cables to the houses - in streets that have previously never had, or have had removed, telegraph poles. It looks terrible and they don't care at all. It's hard to believe their funding model isn't very dodgy.

I'm not sure why it interferes with the Internet to be honest but since the mast has been in place we have had the worst service ever, it could be a coincidence but I doubt it.
I love how people claim they have no adverse health risks how on earth do you know that its new technology nobody knows what effect they have on people.
Something I have noticed though you will rarely find one in more affluent areas but they are everywhere on council estates and poorer areas and I don't think that's a coincidence.

In our area the council made the company applying share a nearby mast. Maybe phone the planning office and ask if this a consideration.

Completely agree.
NIMBYism is ruining the prospects of our young people and making everything cost twice as much as it should, I hope Labour sort it out.
The only thing you've said I disagree with is phone companies sharing masts. Signal is shared for 999 calls, don't see why all masts can't be shared.