Mast plans protest rally
More than 100 angry protesters took to the streets in Shrewsbury to campaign against plans for a phone mast close to two schools.
More than 100 angry protesters took to the streets in Shrewsbury to campaign against plans for a phone mast close to two schools.
One furious parent vowed to switch his daughter to a different school and claimed he might even sell his home if Vodafone pushed ahead with its proposals for the 12-metre high mast in Copthorne Road.
Others hit out at what they claimed was the mobile phone giant's lack of consultation with residents and alleged the company was putting children's health at risk.
The mast, which has planning permission, would be situated near to the Woodfield County Infant School and St George's Primary School.
Dennis Ingall, of Oakfield Road, said his four-year-old daughter Olivia was due to start at Woodfield in January but he said that if the mast went ahead he would move her to a school in Bicton.
Mr Ingall, who also has a one-year-old daughter, said: "My daughter is due to start in January but if it goes ahead we won't be taking her to school there, we will be pulling her out and taking her to Bicton, if there are enough places. I am also maybe thinking of moving house."
Mother-of-two Gillian Carroll-Lewis, of Porthill Drive, said she was concerned about radiation.
Lydia Bromwich, of Kingswood Road, said no consultation had been carried out with residents and said there was no "concrete evidence" to support the safety of phone masts.
Campaigner Jon Sharp, who organised the protest yesterday, said if Vodafone did not back down it would face overwhelming local and political pressure.
The demonstration took place just hours after a meeting between Clive Snelling, environmental and planning controller for Vodafone, members of the NoMast Group, Councillor Judith Williams and Shrewsbury MP Daniel Kawczynski.
Dr Rob Matthews, spokesman for Vodafone, has previously said a review of potential locations had taken place which identified 11 alternative locations.
But he said all of these were discounted as they either posed greater visual intrusion than the proposed location on Copthorne Road and/or did not provide sufficient coverage that the firm seeks.
By Russell Roberts
