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.
Jon
Community Champion
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 https://rfinfo.co.uk/the-uk-government-are-failing-to-regulate-wireless-radiation/
Re: smartphones and wireless technology in schools
We are a group of concerned individuals and parents advocating reduced use of digital devices by children and adolescents in schools and the home. As you may be aware, increasing numbers of schools are banning smartphones in schools so as to improve the mental health and focus of young people.
We would like to bring to your attention evidence of another aspect of harm from smart devices, namely the biological effects of radio frequency radiation (RFR). The claim that RFR does not damage biology is no longer scientifically credible (1). Noteworthy for their high-quality methodology and large-scale study sizes are the National Toxicology Program Report (2) and Ramazzini Institute Study (3) which found clear evidence of heart schwannoma and some evidence for glioblastoma resulting from exposure to RFR. Further studies have found a link between high RFR exposure and other cancers such as that of the breast (4). The attached referenced paper by Nobel team member Dr Davis et al reviews evidence of biological impacts of RFR and states that ‘A wide range of evidence indicates that there are numerous non-thermal effects from wireless radiation on reproduction, development, and chronic illness.’ (5)
Children and young people are particularly susceptible due to their growing bodies and thinner skulls, according to the Swiss expert group on radiation, BERENIS (6) and a number of scientific researchers (7, 8 ,9 ,10 ,11 ,12 ,13). Members of the American Academy of Pediatrics have written letters to the US government regarding the particular vulnerability of children (14). Of particular relevance to schools are the published studies showing negative effects of RFR on learning and cognition (15), and the French public health body ANSES has warned of neurological damage to children from RFR (16).
Indeed, child advocate and author Nicholas Kardaras was shocked to discover that “…recent brain imaging studies conclusively show that excessive screen exposure can neurologically damage a young person’s developing brain in the same way that drug addiction can.” (17) The doctors’ and scientists’ Bio Initiative Report has compiled evidence of neurological damage (18) among other serious health effects.
In light of all this, it seems almost shocking that, currently in the UK, RFR exposures in children are limited only by ICNIRP ‘Thermal Guidelines’. That is, only tissue heating effects that are well known to cause cellular damage are considered. These guidelines only pertain to the tissue-heating effects which is to say that they are already acknowledged to cause cellular damage. Crucially, they do not take into account the substantial body of evidence showing biological effects below this level (19, 20).
Guidelines regarding biological effects and stating that RFR emissions should be avoided in nurseries and primary schools have been issued by official bodies and educators in France, Cyprus, Israel, Germany, Switzerland, Russia and parts of the USA (21 ,22 ,23 ,24 ,25 ,26). For older children, scientists recommend ‘best practices’ such as using wired connections and switching devices off when not in use (27).
You may be interested to see that the UK based scientific group, Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIREmedical.org) and Environmental Health Trust (EHTrust.org) are holding a conference on the subject in East Sussex on Saturday 9th of November (please see flyer with Eventbrite link, below (28)). The Nobel Prize team member Dr Devra Davis will be visiting from the USA in order to speak at the talk and will welcome questions from teachers and scientists.
One can’t help wondering why Lloyds of London will not insure against the harmful effects of EMF and RFR. Their policies exclude any liability coverage for claims “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” Clearly, they do not wish this to be their next asbestos crisis. Food for thought, perhaps.
We hope that you will look at some of the research enclosed and that you will consider your school policy regarding the use of wireless devices. We would be very happy to be able to support or assist you in any way that we can regarding mitigation of RFR. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any queries or if we can help in any way.
Yours sincerely,
Lisa Hutchinson PhD (Medical Journalist).
Ian Jarvis BSc
Nicholas Martin BSc (Local Councillor)
Amanda Kenton
Michael Kenton
For and on behalf of ACHES (Adult, Child, Health and Environmental Support)