Your Community Champion – sharing community news from, & events in, Windsor UK since 2009

5G Mast Planning Application Rules

With 5G Mast planning applications then there are only a few objections you can make that “carry weight”. All things planning are weighed for and against.

You can comment on:

  • The size and bulk of something being out of place from a design point of view ruining the street scene, not next to an allotment, etc.
  • The distraction it may cause drivers on the highway, potentially causing accidents, if say just round a corner so catching the eye
  • Considerations of other sites, better locations
  • The colour!
  • The proximity to trees and the impact on the roots
  • Proximity to school or other public building

You can’t comment on:

  • How it might impact property values or your ability to sell your home
  • Your thoughts on how it might impact the health of those nearby
  • Or anything else you might consider important, they don’t carry weight 

Technically, it’s not the number of objections made against an application that are important, it’s the weight of the comments with a single fact just carrying a single weight even if mentioned 20 times by different people. So one good objection letter will suffice if it covers all the bases. The volume of objections is for the benefit of the human side of the planning officer and for other residents and journalists who take the time to look at the planning applications.

The following recently refused application demonstrates brilliantly how the right outcome can be achieved. If the council hadn’t responded by 18 September, it would have been waved through on the 56 day rule which gives automatic permission if the council fails to respond in time!

Application for determination as to whether prior approval is required for a 17m high ‘slim line’ phase 9 monopole c/w wraparound cabinet at base, 3no. additional ancillary equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works. Pavement Outside The Meads Clarence Road Windsor Ref. No: 23/01860/TLDTT | Validated: Mon 31 Jul 2023 | Status: REFUSED

Windsor & Eton Society and Windsor Neighbourhood Plan delivery group responded in a way they knew would have the best chance of being effective. The residents of the retirement home responded with a signed petition and one other person commented. Thank you to those organisations that actually have residents’ interests at their heart for getting involved and ensuring refusal. And thank you to officers for responding in time and recognising the validity of the objections.

Reading some of the marketing collateral that was submitted against another application recently, the telcos state…

“Research into the safety of radio waves has been conducted for more than 80 years, across the UK and around the world. The strong consensus of scientific opinion and public health agencies, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), is that no dangers to health have been established from exposure to the low-level radio signals used for mobile communications, including 5G, when used within guidelines.”

What do the guidelines actually say? The following is taken from ICNIRP (the global advisory body with the most amazing revolving doors)

ICNIRP (1998) had a restriction for brief (circa 50 ms) pulsed RF EMF to the head; the 2020 guidelines provide protection for exposure durations up to 6 minutes and over the whole body. The averaging time for this restriction has also been changed from 6 minutes in ICNIRP (1998) to 30 minutes in ICNIRP (2020), to better match the time taken for body core temperature to rise. 

So the rules are that telco engineers are not allowed to hang around too long but if you live next door you are expected to deal with it pulsing 24/7. Does that sound right to you?

The adoption of 5G has little to do with what residents actually need. It’s to do with control as the 5G frequencies enable very fast communications with cars, fridges, mobiles, traffic lights, drones, us, etc

The telco marketing collateral says “4G and 5G enabled drones will be able to act like police helicopters, observing large areas, providing live footage to help keep crowds safe and monitoring emergency situations such as a large fire or major incident, at a fraction of the current cost.”

“A fraction of the cost” does that mean we need fewer police, fire and ambulance personnel because the tech is going to sort it all out? 

And the telco marketing collateral goes on…

“5G-connected wearables, such as fitness wristbands and body monitors, can provide critical health updates to GPs and other medical professionals, alerting them to potentially life-threatening issues, such as falls, premature heart attacks and strokes.”

So are they saying the 5G mast is now your “doctor” who will fly in those drugs by drone before you get round to phoning them about feeling a bit off today? The flip side potentially being, if the NHS are paying, this person is costing us too much, time to switch them off. If they’re private then keep running up that bill…

I’ve been pushing back on 5G for some time and this brings out all those with a vested interest offering me a tin foil hat. But what’s their environmental position…

This transfer of information from one device to another requires electricity. 

We get power cuts now so how are we ever going to cope if we need 10x 100x the electricity?

“Global warming” must be loving all this help depleting planetary resources!

How will the 2050 carbon neutral NET ZERO agenda ever be met if we have millions of devices all sending data to each other?

The reality will be, if we just let the money decide what’s happening, the NET ZERO will get pushed back and pushed back to 2075, 2100, 2200, etc

But before these dates are reached Mother Earth will have made her own decision.

Best thing you can do today… join Windsor & Eton Society for just £10 a year and let them do the heavy lifting while you relax and enjoy your garden.

Thank you.

Community Champion

One response to “5G Mast Planning Application Rules”

  1. Hello Jon,
    Thank you for the article, I would like to bring to your attention the recent filing of a legal challenge to the governments failure to enact public health protections. It it not true that the public cannot supply evidence of risks to the environment and public health when objecting to masts. There is public health provisions within the European Electronics Communications code which must be observed by local authorities, these are being sidestepped by local planning authorities LPAs adhering to the restrictive policy 118. The submission requires this policy be altered and requires the government to now clarify the risk reconciliation role of local authorities beyond applying the inadequate ICNIRP compliance certificates. Certificates are accepted by LPAs without fully knowing where exclusion(unsafe) zones fall, without the levels which protect against microwave hearing being calculated and represented within the compliance certificate. To find out more and see a copy of the submission, and see how to act on this information, go to

Leave a Reply