REGRETFULLY, I cannot claim to be an "expert" -- as some have suggested -- in opposing planning approval of mobile phone transmitter masts. So, if there is anything that true experts can add to what I write, I would be most grateful.

However, I do not accept as being beyond challenge the assertion that an untested regulation must be accepted without question, simply because officialdom decrees it. In particular, I am not prepared to ignore the possible consequences of an unlawful decision where the health of people -- especially the vulnerable -- is concerned. I do not accept such a ruling as sacrosanct.

In addition, I am only too well aware of the "all is well; there is no need to worry" assurances of officialdom -- after which we suffered the tragedies of Thalidomide and, more recently, BSE.

It seems to me to be plain common sense that Bury Council should follow the recommendations of the Stewart Report. In May 2000, the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, under the leadership of Professor Sir William Stewart, presented their government-sponsored report "Mobile phones and health". This study of the possible health effects of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters, sought evidence from experts, members of the public, representatives of government, interest groups and the industry.

There were nine conclusions. Four of them are:

1. The use of mobile phones will continue to increase.

2. Evidence to date does not suggest a general health risk.

3. Some scientific evidence shows that radio-frequency (RF) radiation may affect biological function. It is not possible to say, therefore, that exposure is totally without potential health effects.

4. A precautionary approach should be adopted.

The Stewart Report concluded that health issues had not yet been resolved. I want to see Bury MBC adopt, in full, the precautionary approach it recommended. This is our chance to be wise before the event -- unlike the experiences with Thalidomide, BSE, overhead power lines, and so on.

There are hundreds of scientific papers from around the world that raise serious concerns about the biological effects of phone mast radiation (based on the frequency of the pulsed transmissions). The Government and the phone companies only talk about the physical (thermal) effects in their literature, because they haven't got an answer yet on biological health concerns.

Interestingly, the Government is involved in a £7.3 million study of phone mast health concerns, and yet they have rushed through the instruction to local councils to disregard any issue regarding health, before they have even seen the results.

One material consideration for planning authorities is whether a proposal will have a detrimental effect on amenity values in a locality generally.

"Amenity value" is a term enshrined in planning law and ought, in the public interest, to be protected. This includes, in my submission, any health concerns of the directly affected public.

The basis of my objection in this context is linked to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Principles, that is the right to respect for private and family life in the home.

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), which is issued to local government, is precisely what it says: guidance, and not a directive.

So, why doesn't Bury MBC exercise its lawful duty to make the health of its citizens its highest priority? The answer, it seems to me, is bound up with money.

The New Labour Government has received £22 billion from mobile phone companies to license the latest generation of the most powerful mobile phones, and now it is pay-back time!

DAVID H. FOSS,

Layfield Close, Tottington.