Six years ago, when the first mobile ‘phone company approached Seagull Towers, the planning process was attended by a campaign from local activists wanting to prevent it on health grounds. Mr and Mrs Green, the resident eco-warriors, let the activists into the block to go round canvassing the residents, some of whom gave them an irate reception; Mildred Timpson, however, was persuaded that her pacemaker would go berserk once the mast started operating, and others also feared they might not live to receive the Queen’s telegram if they allowed this alien to land on the roof. The directors of the time fumed at the undermining of their efforts to secure some extra money for the kitty and asked whether the Greens intended to reject their share of the resulting improvements.

The protesters won, first time round, and could be seen (I learned from the Old Bill, the ancient mariner of Seagull Towers) excitedly phoning their friends from outside Gullscliff Town Hall to tell them the good news – on their mobiles. They lost on appeal because the government had indicated that health worries were inadmissible as grounds for refusing permission to mobile masts, as there was no evidence that there was any damage to health.

Income seemed cursed

The mast was hoisted on to the roof about a year before I arrived, but the ill feeling generated but the decision had split the residents, as well as causing resentment against Seagull Towers from a number of neighbours. A local protest website accused residents of caring nothing for other people, especially schoolchildren or hospital patients, and Mildred said she could no longer have tea in the Copper Kettle without feeling like a pariah because the proprietor’s daughter had been leader of the anti-mast campaign. The income seemed cursed for some time afterwards. The first year’s payment was used up on legal fees arising from the subsequent dispute about refurbishment costs.

This was a difficult issue for me too: I had not realised before buying my flat that there was a mast on the roof and all my own instincts were against it. Coming on to the board at a time when two other mobile ‘phone companies were competing for our roof-space, however, I thought it would be irresponsible to reject the idea without doing research on the internet and quizzing the various engineers and advisers we met during the negotiation process.

So far as I could see, if there were any problems they were more likely to come from using mobile handsets. The engineers said helpfully that the residents by being directly under the masts were less at risk than people at a distance (hardly a public-spirited consolation), if there were any risk, but there wasn’t. The independent adviser said the argument about children was irrational, since they were using mobile handsets: it would be safer for them to have a good signal from a nearby mast. We concluded that since the government was backing the expansion of the mobile ‘phone network, and since we could only rely on the evidence so far available that indicated no health risk, the mast might as well be on top of our block (not the most picturesque building in Gullscliff) as anywhere.

They queue up

Seagull Towers is a prime site for mobile ‘phone companies: they queue up to ask for space on our roof. We’ve now arrived at an agreement among ourselves and with the neighbours that we will stop at two. The opposition has subsided anyway, realising that with present technology either you abandon mobiles or you put up with masts. We’ve never had to participate in the planning process, as mobile ‘phone companies routinely take care of this aspect.

The company, like the first one, also paid for our freehold company to obtain independent legal advice on the contract, which meant another visit to Shingle and Samphire, our solicitors. We were lucky to have a new resident on the board by then, Jim Austin, who had owned an electronics shop. He had negotiated a good deal for us, but Mr Pebble, our solicitor, very nearly lost us £3,000 by his determination to adjust our contract to a standard formula that did not represent our agreement. It was Jim’s obstinacy that finally persuaded the lawyers, proving that traditional professionals are not always helpful. For our second mast we gained a yearly income for 10 years that was five times what some companies offered as their opening gambit, in addition to a one-off payment. In a new enterprise like this, we realised we had learned more than many local agents and lawyers – you need to pick and choose your advice carefully.

The total sum from the two masts is a real benefit to Seagull Towers – even our suspicious, parsimonious Mrs Ponsonby is pleased, though she can never quite believe that the directors have done all the work to obtain them without getting personal backhanders. May I make it clear once and for all – we didn’t get a penny. ®Å½

In the next issue Jane Bayliss looks at the implications of having mobile ‘phone masts on her block, with one or two unexpected consequences