Gwen Callahan, Plumstead
As a homeowner living directly across the road from Culmwood Gardens in Culm Road, Plumstead, I and other neighbours in Culm Road opposed the application for the erection of the mast in question (The mysterious case of the EMF report, Bulletin January 19).
One of them claims to have already had health problems due to the close proximity of a mast on the roof (one among many).
It’s a short distance from his neighbouring flat and on virtually the same level.
He contacted a number of the other neighbours advising us that he would be addressing council at their next meeting and some of us attended. After his presentation, councillor Liz Brunette asked the applicant (for the installation of the mast) if measurements had been taken of the EMF (electromagnetic field) levels.
He looked somewhat taken aback and did not know.
Ms Brunette then asked him to take responsibility for seeing that this was done and to report the results to them.
Thus the meeting ended.
However, we were subsequently informed by registered letter that the application had been approved.
This has been repeated on each occasion (there are at least three or four masts in operation between these two side-by-side blocks).
Every objection has been totally ignored. We have had all our objections swept under the carpet on every occasion. Could the council please explain this to us?
Why the secrecy about the readings in Culm Road, when it was a condition for approval for the erection of this mast?
Why are we steamrollered every time?
Please explain, we deserve an explanation.
Mayco member for transport and urban development, Brett Herron, responds:
Sub-council 20 directed City Health to undertake radiation readings from the existing base station before making the decision about the application for a rooftop base telecommunication station on Culmwood Gardens in Plumstead. The readings were well below the required standards. Sub-council 20 subsequently approved the application.
