If you’d like to respond to the planning application then please do so here by 24th May… search for 21/01269 on the Planning Portal. Below is my response… if struggling to use the online form then email email@example.com and cc me in firstname.lastname@example.org Thank you.
OBJECTION to the Installation of a 5G Mast on Ruddlesway
The Government says we need 5G seemingly at all costs.
The best we can hope for is that the applicant is asked to relocate this mast on Tinkers Lane, on or next to the existing mast, or at another more appropriate location, as it will then minimise impact on the visual and natural environment.
There is an increasing body of evidence to demonstrate we should be concerned about 5G and it’s potential health impacts on residents but this is not a planning consideration, as dictated by the Government, but is an Environmental concern.
The proposal is looking to build next to trees that appear to be over 50 years old and so it is fair to assume many creatures make use of this habitat and their rights need to be considered in this process. See NPPF Sect 15 paras 170, 175 & 180. (see below)
Parliamentary Committee meeting above appears to say that Public Health England’s solicitors say that councils can’t rely on ICNIRP certification and need to do their own research.
I have asked, a number of times, for a full and open debate to discuss the current research into 5G based on the fact that elected representatives also bear a personal responsibility for protecting the health and safety of those whom they represent, which cannot lawfully be negated by adopting a position of wilful ignorance or abdication of responsibility through deference to ICNIRP.
The resultant appearance and siting of the proposed development, by virtue of its excessive height and width of the attached equipment and its siting in a prominent corner location close to residential properties I consider to constitute a visually incongruous and prominent feature, which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.
Furthermore, the proximity to the existing mast would also result in an unacceptable amount of clutter in this part of the street scene.
Cllr. Jon Davey
NPPF 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
170. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan);
d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;
e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and
f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.
175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and
d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity
180. Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should:
a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life;
b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and
c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.