Letter: Poor planning for mobile phones
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir:Your editorial (24 May) omitted one important issue, that of the environmental impact of mobile phones.
Take a drive round the M25 and you cannot fail to notice the multitude of unsightly aerial towers which have sprouted during the past 15 years to service the needs of this growth industry. The towers are said to number some 8,000 at present, and are still increasing.
These structures may be acceptable in uninhabited regions beside motorways, but to ensure 90+ per cent coverage some must be sited in rural areas. To facilitate this the last government considerably relaxed planning regulations, to the extent that a tower of 15 metres could be constructed without planning permission, and issued guidelines advising local planners to be "alive to the special needs and technical problems of telecommunications development", which the DOE have stated "should prevail over the normal planning policies which militate against inappropriate development". Local authorities can refuse permission for a structure that they consider unsuitable, but are reluctant to do so since their decisions have tended to be overruled by the DOE on appeal.
CECIL and CHRISTINE HARDY
Ashford, Kent
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments