A group of residents from Milford Rd & Ham Lane recently posted an open letter to as many neighbours in Elstead as time & person-power permitted, alerting them to a planned second phone mast, proposed for Wayside Farm, just to the north of Ham Lane. Since then, Waverley Borough Council planners have refused planning permission for this mast. We are not yet 'out of the woods' because 02 has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, but the signs are that 02 is seeking a less controversial site. This is welcome news to the writers of the 104 letters of opposition to the mast We acknowledge that people like phones & phones need masts and we agree that 02 reception is poor in Elstead, but we argued for effective protection to be given to the countryside and more consideration to the wishes of the local community.

The lesson for us all is still to stay alert to what is happening about us. We have come to realise how often the siting of masts is considered inappropriate - currently in Tilford [2], Farnham [2], Liphook, Rushmore, Ewell and Witley. In Elstead, 02 mentioned, among nine other sites which it actively considered, the green verge in Stacey's Farm Road [therefore opposite the Nursery School at the Village Hall]. The consultation process lasts only 30 days, so it is necessary to act quickly. Without a prompt and robust response to the planners, masts will go up whatever our feelings are.

We must all be ready to express our views. Two Waverley Councillors live in Elstead - Nancy Mitchell and Richard Terry [c/o Waverley BC, The Burys, Godalming GU7 1HR]; our MP is Jeremy Hunt [at Westminster, or e-mail jeremyhuntmp@parliament.uk]; Elstead Parish Councillors and Surrey Hills AONB both voted to oppose the 02 application. The most effective arguments relate to the disfigurement of the landscape; duty to protect the AONB; need for consideration towards local community; unrealistic and highly intrusive sites. References to health risks are disregarded as 'unconfirmed', but logically, is not an unconfirmed health risk also an unconfirmed safety record?