Cheaper because it is nearer the electricity supply, cheaper because it is easier for maintenance and access from an adjoining road or track. However, the requirements are not that spot specific and there is absolutely no reason why a properly erected and located Mast should be closer than a minimum of 200 to 250 metres from any inhabited property, using a ground based Mast and Ground Based Station. Unfortunately the Industry ignores the obvious because it is easier and cheaper, and usually regrettably there is no-one to take them on or to challenge their planning application with the Planning Authorities. Governments are there to be wise and knowledgeable. Governments are not there to be led by the Industry in pursuit of progress and financial gain at the expense of the public at large.
Governments are there to be able to interpret properly scientific guidance or advice.
This proliferation of' Network Masts may turn out to be the next BSE for ignoring the warnings and acting without any common sense or prudent avoidance. Reverting to the mobiles themselves, it is not common sense to put a mobile against your head for four or five hours a day at the incidence of your employer. In law, almost certainly that Employer is not providing a safe system of work. Equally, under the Consumer Protection Act it seems probable now that the manufacturers ought to display some form of health warning on their products to protect themselves from product liability claims - and of course the users to whom then sell the huge number of phones from internal danger to enable such consumers to make an informed choice or consent. Possibly, in due course, it will be shown scientifically that living in too close proximity to a Mast is damaging to health, and possibly then there will under provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 be legal remedies available, which allow people to seek compensation from the mobile phone network providers, and also against those who allow the Masts to be on their land.