OBJECTION to Planning Application 24/00522 – 5G Mast TOO NEAR Lawns Nursery

I have just been made aware of plans to install a 5G Mast near Lawns Nursery & Oakfield First School and submitted an objection on the portal.

24/00522/TLDTT | The proposed works compromise the installation of 20m high monopole supporting 6 no. antennas, 2 no. dishes, 2 no. equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto including RRUs and GPS module. | Land At Junction of Westmead Road And Springfield Road Windsor

To view the planning application search 24/00522 below

Residents and parents have until the 1st April to comment on the application and the council has to notify the applicant of their decision before 24th April or it is automatically given permission.

OBJECTION TO 24/00522

As the law stands there are very few grounds for objection.

Here are my objections based on the current law as I understand it:

1. I think, with the mast standing 20m tall with no trees, (or clutter as the applicant refers to them) between the mast and the road and with a school entrance only a few metres away, it is fair to say a 5G mast at this site could easily cause a distraction for drivers and therefore a potential risk to local school children.

2. A 20m mast is not in keeping with the local environment. This is very much an urban area made up of family maisonettes, semi detached and a few detached houses. Not an industrial area more suitable to the mast’s appearance.

3. Has a Tree Survey been submitted? There needs to be a Tree Survey done inline with best practice. The radius of the Tree Protection Zone is calculated for the tree by multiplying its trunk width (diameter) at breast height, 1.4m above the ground and multiplying it by 12. No cabinets or masts should interfere with tree roots.

4. The consultation does not appear to have been a thorough one. What does the RBWM consider to be adequate consultation as described in the “Code of practice for wireless network development in England” and “NPPF”. Is a simple letter to the head teacher & chair of governors asking for their thoughts enough or should the schools be consulting with the parents? Is it fair to put this responsibility on schools? Should RBWM conduct a wider consultation with parents and residents when the application is near a school? After all it will be RBWM, not the applicant, that would be liable for any potential legal actions taken in the future.

OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER IN MAKING YOUR DECISION

I have concerns about having 5G technology in residential areas and if we are forced to have it by the Government then I believe RBWM should adopt the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and not have 5G Masts near schools.

In towns & cities in the UK, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Russia, California, Switzerland, Australia & Germany local councils are showing caution, many adopting the “Precautionary Principle” with regards to 5G.

The French have banned wi-fi in primary schools…

Even the Israelis have banned wireless in kindergartens!

The applicant has submitted 26 documents. A good number of marketing documents and an abundance of repetitively, to my mind, all to bamboozle residents and put them off making an objection. 

By way of illustration, rather than put each of over a dozen objections individually on the portal, the applicant has submitted them as a single document. By contrast they have two dozen documents looking to support their corner.

A dozen or more of those documents talk about, I should say dismiss the health impact. Why do that when health is not a valid reason for objecting to the mast?

They even state that there is no evidence that telecom masts cause brain tumours. Again, why state that specifically if there is no need to address health as an objection?

One of the applicants documents states:

“5G Technologies

5G New Radio technologies operate in higher frequency bands than older technologies. Since it operates at higher frequencies where attenuation of the radio signal is naturally higher, and the effects of clutter are greater it will normally require a higher structure to achieve the same coverage footprint. Furthermore, unlike traditional technologies 5G uses adaptive beamforming technologies to increase capacity and data speeds to the user. For effective beamforming the antenna will normally need to be mounted higher than conventional antennas. These factors drive a require for an increase in antenna height in 5G

International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Compliance The addition of new technologies and mast sharing affects ICNIRP compliance, one of the health and safety requirements for a cell site, a higher minimum mast height is required in some cases.”

I believe I am right in saying that “adaptive beamforming technologies” is not how 4G and other telco EMF signals work.

This creates questions, since RBWM are liable for any installations.

Are RBWM Council officers happy with how these signals are being measured and can they assure residents that there are no long term health consequences of such technologies?

ICNIRP is the body that decides the global standards for telecoms and most nations sign up and the organisation appears to run a revolving door policy as do many of these types of bodies. 

In their 2020 Statement of Principles, ICNIRP states:
“Indirect effects Most health effects considered in non-ionizing radiation protection are direct effects. However, health effects can also arise from indirect pathways. For instance they may occur from an electric discharge arising from metallic objects charged by exposure to some types of non-ionizing radiation; these types of indirect effects are considered by ICNIRP. Other types are not, for example, heating of metallic objects in the body, such as prostheses, or an influence on the operation of medical devices such as pacemakers. The latter electromagnetic interference effects are of a technical nature and do not fall within the remit of ICNIRP.”

Generally, councils rely on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This framework states:

Para 117:

“(b) … for an addition to an existing mast or base station, a statement that self-certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection; or (c) for a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennae on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met.”

Para 118:

“Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.”

However, in her letter of 27 February 2020, to the minister at the Dept of Digital Culture Media and Sport (DDCMS), Wera Hobhouse MP quotes DLA Piper – solicitors to Public Health England (PHE) now UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), who themselves rely in ICNIRP guidelines – as saying:

“A public body must determine how much weight to put on the PHE guidance. Equally that body must determine what other evidence from your client or other members of the public or interested parties to consider in making any decision. If it be alleged that a public body now or in the future acted unlawfully in placing reliance on the guidance, that cannot retrospectively taint the guidance with illegality.”

This underlines the fact that, if you rely on ICNIRP, it is the council – not the ICNIRP guidance or its issuer – are liable.

And, do you as a council know that the ICNIRP 1998 guidelines state that the prevention of harm and advice about interference is beyond the scope of ICNIRP? We refer you to the reference below:

“Compliance with the present guidelines may not necessarily preclude interference with, or effects on, medical devices such as metallic prostheses, cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators, and cochlear implants. Interference with pacemakers may occur at levels below the recommended reference levels. Advice on avoiding these problems is beyond the scope of the present document but is available elsewhere (UNEP/WHO/IRPA1993). These guidelines will be periodically revised and updated as advances are made in identifying the adverse health effects of time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic field.”

If there is no disability impact assessment in relation to this technology, it could be argued that provisions of the Equality Act 2010 may well have been broken.

Has RBWM for Planning or Environmental Health looked at how many residents might be impacted by the above? What steps have they taken to find out how many people have such metal implants or pacemakers and what steps would be taken to safeguard such people given that Nokia – a 5G antenna supplier – states that a single mast can cover 100s of square miles?

COMMENTS ON THE PORTAL

While it is only necessary for 1 person to make clear objections that RBWM officers have to address, the impact of many comments demonstrates public interest in an application and so more careful consideration will obviously be given.

UK LAW 

Code of practice for wireless network development in England

Consultation with schools

85. Where it is proposed to install, alter or replace a base station in the vicinity of a school or college, operators should discuss the proposed development with the relevant body of the school or college before submitting an application to the local planning authority.

86. Operators should agree with the planning authority which schools and colleges should be consulted on a case by case basis, and this should form part of the consultation plan shared with the planning authority. In determining whether a school or college should be consulted, the following factors should be taken into account by operators and planning authorities:

• The proposed site is on school or college grounds;
• The site is on a main access point used by pupils or students to the school or college;
• The planning authority has requested consultation with the school or college; and,
• The school or college has requested to be included in any consultation.

87. At a minimum, the operator should send a consultation letter or email to the school or college. This should be sent by recorded delivery in the case of a letter, or an email that is saved and referenced within any subsequent application. Correspondence should be addressed to the head teacher or principal, and the chair of governors (or equivalent). The operator should wait a minimum of 14 days from the recorded delivery of the letter to allow an opportunity for the school to respond prior to submitting an application for planning permission or prior approval.

88. As per the National Planning Policy Framework, planning applications and prior approval applications should include information on the outcome of such consultations with schools and colleges.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

10. Supporting high quality communications

118. Advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. Planning policies and decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G) and full fibre broadband connections. Policies should set out how high quality digital infrastructure, providing access to services from a range of providers, is expected to be delivered and upgraded over time; and should prioritise full fibre connections to existing and new developments (as these connections will, in almost all cases, provide the optimum solution). 

119. The number of radio and electronic communications masts, and the sites for such installations, should be kept to a minimum consistent with the needs of consumers, the efficient operation of the network and providing reasonable capacity for future expansion. Use of existing masts, buildings and other structures for new electronic communications capability (including wireless) should be encouraged. Where new sites are required (such as for new 5G networks, or for connected transport and smart city applications), equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate. 

120. Local planning authorities should not impose a ban on new electronic communications development in certain areas, impose blanket Article 4 directions over a wide area or a wide range of electronic communications development, or insist on minimum distances between new electronic communications development and existing development. They should ensure that: a) they have evidence to demonstrate that electronic communications infrastructure is not expected to cause significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment, air traffic services or instrumentation operated in the national interest; and b) they have considered the possibility of the construction of new buildings or other structures interfering with broadcast and electronic communications services. 

121. Applications for electronic communications development (including applications for prior approval under the General Permitted Development Order) should be supported by the necessary evidence to justify the proposed development. This should include: 

a) the outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed near a school or college, or within a statutory safeguarding zone surrounding an aerodrome, technical site or military explosives storage area; and 

b) for an addition to an existing mast or base station, a statement that self-certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection; or 35 

c) for a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met. 

122. Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.