A ruling to allow broadband masts to be erected at north-east schools is forcing councillors to play “Russian roulette” with children’s health, it has been claimed.
Last week, the Scottish Government’s planning appeals department overturned a decision by Aberdeenshire Council’s Buchan area committee to reject a proposal for a 36ft WiFi mast at Auchnagatt Primary.
Committee members had claimed the mast – one of many being installed to provide superfast wireless connections at schools and offices in Aberdeenshire – could put children’s health at risk.
But government planning reporter Douglas Hope ruled there was no good reason for the proposal to be thrown out.
He said Aberdeenshire Council had provided paperwork that proved the equipment fully complied with guidelines for public exposure to radio frequency radiation.
Last night, Buchan councillor Jim Ingram condemned the ruling.
He said: “It is disappointing that we are being forced to play Russian roulette with the long-term health of a small percentage of near infants whose wellbeing we surely must be responsible for.”
Mr Ingram accepted that, as highlighted in Mr Hope’s report, the technology was “widely seen” as safe.
But he added: “It is also considered by numerous qualified experts to possess considerable serious and adverse side-effects, many of which they claim are only recently being appreciated.”
He cited a recent study in South Korea which concluded there was a likelihood that two out of every 100 under-fives could be affected in later life by serious illness believed to derive from mast emissions.
“In a place the size of Mintlaw, that equates to 60 persons being affected in the fullness of time – not inconsiderable in my estimation.
“As a local councillor, I accept that I am required to observe planning guidelines, but I also consider it is my duty to be aware of the possible dangers likely to be encountered by those that I have some responsibility to protect.”
Buchan councillors voted against the Auchnagatt plan in December.
Aberdeenshire Council appealed against the committee’s decision and, in its submission to the government’s directorate for planning and environmental appeals, argued that extensive testing and research had found there was no risk to public health.