Nice to see all turn up.

The name Calstock TRAM was adopted to show both the individual issues on location and Local Council, yet acknowledge the work that TRAM have done and desire to support them.

Although differing in approach their is intent to liaise with both TRAM and those protesting about the structure at Sand Place

Kit is working on building rapport with the ANOB body as so far they have seemed reluctant to support any opposition to the mast development.

There is a consensus that Network Rail be approached to see if they will discuss alternatives to the location and size of masts.

Queries to NetRail are ongoing as to their views on proximity to adjacent residents and the local school. In that vein more info on the area covered by the radiation is sought by asking for a plan of the area effected by beam.

There is little support for a challenge to NetRail's assumption that they have planning permission or a mandate to carry out the work, or the financial sensibility or safety benefits such works will accomplish. This issues are being raised by TRAM etc, and are not specific to the Calstock site. However as an individual I am interested with these aspects and intend to continue to make representations on the planning front.

This website does not represent Calstock TRAM, but I hope that information on this site is useful on the general issues and how people are and can be involved.

Friday 11th March

About 50 people attended and 9 agreed to work on methods to remove the impact of the mast.

Three options are:

1. Ask why the system is needed at all on a small branch line, and query the mandate to push it through
2. If Network Rail and locals agree on the benefits, then can smaller mast be used.
3. If any operational development of such a significant nature are deemed necessary, then planning permission ought to be sought under Part 24 rather than try and slide it through Part 17 of the GPDO

Links to other local initiatives:

Sandplace mast, Looe Valley thisiscornwall.co.uk and polraen.co.uk

Bere Alston: bereferrers.blog spot.com/2011/03/mps-actions-at-westminster.html

Totnes and Article 4 mastsanity.org

Contrary to the assertion that the mast will not be used by Mobile Phone operators, for various reasons:

As mentioned previously, the Cullen Report was quite favourable towards the use of standard mobile phones by drivers and conductors.

Providing uninterrupted coverage to rail passengers is something of a Holy Grail for mobile phone operators. One or more operators would almost certainly be willing to provide Network Rail and the rail operators with secure in-cab communications at a heavily subsidised price in return for Network Rail's cooperation. ....

.... We imagine that most people would trust Vodafone or Orange, or almost anyone else, to manage a communications network better than Network Rail. And erecting new masts to fill in the gaps in coverage would be vastly cheaper and less disruptive than building a whole new network, and could be implemented far more quickly. Unfortunately, it seems that Network Rail is institutionally averse to cooperation

mastsanity.org