BBC NEWS | Talking Point | Forum | Your Politics | Your Politics: Railway phone masts

"There has been no consultation whatsoever. I just want a fair say. But they can do absolutely whatever they want. It's just nuts."

Tim Atkinson,
Bourne End

Get involved

Your responses

Tim and Karen Atkinson say they want our railways to be as safe as possible.

But they don't want a new railway communications mast at the bottom of their garden.

The Atkinsons live in an idyllic spot near the River Thames in Buckinghamshire.

Their home backs onto a small branch line, with one train running back and forth every hour between Marlow and Bourne End.

The railway has never caused them a problem - until now.

Tim and Karen have learnt that Network Rail plans to site a 33-metre-high communications mast next to the track.

Not only will it be an eyesore. Tim and Karen have three young children and they say they're concerned about the safety implications.

"This mast is going to be put about 20 metres from the garden where the children play," says Tim. "We're concerned about the safety. No-one seems to have proved beyond doubt that it's safe."

The mast is part of a new GSM communications system, which Network Rail says is needed to bring our railway infrastructure into line with European regulations.

"It's ridiculous" says Tim. "It's like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, particularly when you look at this line. I don't know why we have to be dictated to by Brussels over safety on a railway track that has just two trains an hour."

Not only that. The Atkinsons are angry because Network Rail doesn't need any kind of planning permission to erect the mast, and it has no duty to consult, or even inform local residents.

Tim says residents only found out about the mast when Network Rail wrote to the local council, informing them that it was a fait accompli.

Network Rail is able to install masts without planning permission because of a clause in planning legislation called a General Permissible Development Order.

The GPDO was introduced after the Ladbroke Grove rail disaster to enable Railtrack to make urgent changes to its signalling and safety infrastructure.

Campaigners are angry that the clause is now being used to install communications masts across the country.

"People presume that they'll find out about these masts but that's not the case. They don't need any planning permission at all, so there's no notification like you'd expect if anything else was being put up outside your house," says Lisa Oldham of campaign group Mast Sanity.

Network Rail admits that around 1400 new masts are planned to update it's communications system adding they are needed, not just to comply with European legislation, but also to make our railways safe.

It also insist that these masts are safe.

"The emissions from these masts will be much lower than from commercial mobile communications masts. The emissions will be over 400 times lower than the international limits" states Network Rail brief.

Campaigners are concerned about the safety of these masts, which use similar technology to that of mobile phones.

They also fear that Network Rail will eventually sell or lease the sites to mobile telephone companies.

Network Rail insists that the masts are safe. And it says there are no plans to use them for anything other than railway communication.

The Atkinsons and their neighbours say they're not "nimbys". They accept the need for a mast, but they've written to Network Rail suggesting more suitable sites away from houses further down the railway line.

Network Rail has promised to reconsider the proposed position of the mast.

Click here to watch the Your Politics report on Railway masts

What you can do:
With at least 1400 new masts planned across the country, this is an issue that could affect anyone living close to a railway line.
Network Rail's website is at http://www.networkrail.co.uk
The company says it isn't possible to inform every local resident of planned mast locations.
Instead, the company is writing to local councils. If you're concerned about a proposed mast, get in touch with your local authority planning department at the earliest possible stage and work with them to suggest alternative sites.
Mast Sanity can be contacted through their website, http://www.mastsanity.org
Or you can telephone their advice line on 08704 322 377 between 1pm and 8pm, Monday to Friday (national rate).

You sent us your comments on this issue.
There are countrywide protest groups at the madness of this programme and Network Rail are using a spurious case for safety to justify it. They have not even considered alternatives to the scheme and are in no position to talk about the safety of the masts when the government's own study - The Stewart Report - urged caution.
The placing often beggars belief - the proposed 100ft mast at Fairlawn End in Oxford is a few metres from houses, only 155 metres from a primary school and adjacent to a conservation area. Network Rail have broken every guideline in selecting this site and are now lamely saying they will look again. A simple ploy adopted in the hope that local opposition will fade away.
It is also incorrect to say they cannot be stopped, PPG8 for example, offers an opportunity to do this - but councils do not want to spend money so are remaining inert and ignoring their responsibilies.
A recent Appeal Court decision also gave the opportunity to use health as grounds for refusal.
Perhaps you will offer a more balanced view in the future?
> Gerard van Dam

I'm outraged that Network Rail can abuse their operating powers like this

Chris Higgins, UK

I'm outraged that Network Rail can abuse their operating powers like this. The loophole in the law was I understand originally to allow the railways to maintain and operate their essential services, but it was surely not intended to grant them absolute powers either to destroy the environment by wholesale destruction of trees, or to set up a new business (like transmission masts) without the normal controls applicable to all other businesses. You are right there is no public consultation or accountability for this.
Chris Higgins, UK
I feel very sorry for the Atkinsons, in fact I feel sorry for all of us. This is yet another example of people's wishes - health related or otherwise - being blatantly ignored yet again in ruthless pursuit of so-called progress and technological advances, the risks of which are not fully known and probably won't be until at the least the next generation. I would urge everyone to work together on this and indeed all related issues to stop these things happening otherwise somebody somewhere is always going to be affected.
Rachel Smith-Lyte, UK

Your Politics viewer Karen Norris has had this mast erected outside her house.

I watched your report this evening on the 6 O'clock news and had every sympathy with the family living near an area where a mast is proposed to be erected. This photo was taken from my son's bedroom window of a Vodafone mast, and as you can see it is very close to our house. We had no say whatsoever, it just appeared early one Sunday morning. A further Orange mast was going to be erected, but due to an outburst by local residents led by my husband, it was refused. We still have to put up with this one though. We have been trying to sell our house for the past year, without success and we feel this is due to the mast at the bottom of our garden.
Karen Norris, South Croydon
I understand that Network Rail have commenced a policy of wholesale tree felling - with a programme to remove all trees from the curtilage of every operating railway line in the UK - within 5 metres of the track, and that they also reserve the right, at their discretion for felling of trees up to 10 metres from any track. They also claim to have the right to fell or lop trees on adjacent properties not in their ownership if they consider they could have an impact on the operation of the railway. All this work can be undertaken by Network Rail without the requirement of any form of statutory consent.
Whereas I fully understand the need to operate a safe and efficient railway system, I have not seen any justification for such a draconian policy, which appears to totally disregard the environmental impact on the landscape, wildlife and the countryside generally. I cannot believe that the technology does not exist to avoid such needless wholesale destruction of nature - and that other methods of control, such as pollarding or even relocation of mature tree specimens couldn't be adopted in more sensitive areas. Further, and as per last night's report, I am not aware of any public consultation on this issue anywhere in this country.
It is truly shocking to me that Network Rail have been given such power to alter our built landscape and surroundings without any accountability. I have been in contact with my local MP - Don Foster on this issue, and who implied to me that there is growing feeling that DfT have got their thinking wrong on this. It would be nice to see some further investigation by others on this matter.
Richard Collis, UK