Message board by JP.

UKSTOP5G - TAKE ACTION TO STOP 5G IN THE UK

PLEASE OBJECT TO MAST APPLICATIONS POSTED HERE -- YOU CAN ALSO POST NEW APPLICATIONS HERE -- BUT PLEASE DO NOT POST COMMENTS AS THIS FORUM IS FOR MAST APPLICATIONS ONLY - THANKS! -- SCROLL DOWN FOR EARLIER DATES
You are commenting as
J
Judith · 3 days ago
There were 7 comments/objections on the original, only 2 of which were local.

COMMENTS by 29-MAY-2024
PLANNING APPEAL https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/
Appeal Reference = APP/Q4245/W/24/3339326. Just input 3339326.
You can input your comments directly on the screen or attach a document.
Installation of a Valmont 20m high pole including 6no antennas and 3no shared dishes, followed by installation of 2no 0.6-meter dishes, 1no GPS node and associated equipment. Ground level works will involve installation of six cabinets and ancillary apparatus. Notification for prior approval under Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015)
Adjacent To B5213 Stretford Road/opposite Moss Vale Road Urmston M41 9LZ
ORIGNAL application =
112084/TEL/23 (TRAFFORD COUNCIL WEBSITE (https://pa.trafford.gov.uk/online-applications/)

It is worth keeping a copy of your comments and sending a copy to local councillors
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
NOTE: You do not have to be a local to raise an objection. You can just say that you visit the area, a friend in the area, work there etc.
Appearance and Siting:
** The site is in a predominantly residential area, along the main route between the 2 local centres of Stretford and Urmston. The M60 bridges the road adjacent to the site.
** Heights of the pole = 20m; the M60 = 8m; residential property = approx 7.5m; trees = 13m. the pole will therefore tower over its surroundings and be visually intrusive.
** Distances from local property:
• 11 Auburn Drive = approx.14m from the garden boundary, 20m from the house.
• 9 Auburn Drive = approx. 24m from garden, approx. 27m from the house.
• 3-7 Auburn Drive would have views from their back gardens.
• 13 – 25, although set further away, could be impacted visually – more so during winter, when vegetation provides less screening.
** The monopole would extend well above the M60, so drivers would be exposed to radiation from the antennae. During busy periods, traffic jams occur, so drivers could be exposed for extended periods of time.

** Monopoles and their accompanying cabinets are hideous / overbearing and unnerving, and for many people, cause anxiety and stress.
** The impact of this proposal on the health and well-being of residents is a material planning consideration, which includes the fear and anxiety of harm.
** The cabinets will cause unnecessary clutter.
** The proposed site is in close proximity (within 500 m) of residential property and schools.
Highfield Primary School, St. Antony's Roman Catholic School and Treehouse Childcare Ltd are all within 400m. So too are residential homes.
Children are deemed sensitive receptors at school, and this should apply at home too.
** ICNIRP guidelines (2020) only cover HUMANS. They do not include the environment, animals, or plants.
** The ICNIRP Guidelines (2020) specifically exclude individuals with any metal in their body or an active medical device. It is highly likely that the ICNRIP certificate does not cover a large proportion of the local residents.
(Examples of metal in the body include metal pins, plates, rods, discs, screws (hip/knee replacements) Cardiovascular – implantable heart loop recorders, stents and pacemakers. Implants to treat and monitor health conditions, deliver drugs or to restore bodily functions e.g. diabetes related products. Magnetic cerebral spinal fluid shunts. Cochlear implants for hearing loss. Dental work – braces, implants, metal crowns, pins, denture arches, mercury amalgam fillings.)

** Residents could well be exposed to levels of harmful radiation throughout the day and night. Fear of harm is a valid point to make in an objection letter and cannot be ignored.
SOME USEFUL LINKS to be used in your objection letter

HUMAN HEALTH
8 recently published case-studies in Sweden (Hardell and Nilsson) demonstrate the real-life effect of 5G on human health. These clearly show that 5G deployment is a serious public safety issue.
The cases covered individuals living / working close to 5G antennae.
Symptoms included severe headaches, tinnitus, nosebleeds, insomnia, anxiety, memory loss, irregular pulse, skin rashes etc.
The distances from the antennae ranged from 5m to 125m; 285m; just under and over 500m (2 base stations),
A summary of the first 6 cases can be found here = https://www.journalserapublications.com/issues/v01/i01/JEPL_1020240101001.pdf
Last 2 =
http://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/a-woman-aged-82-years-with-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-since-almost-four-decades-developed-the-microwave-syndrome-after-insta.html
https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/a-woman-aged-82-years-with-electromagnetic.pdf

New Hampshire Commission
In 2019, a Commission on 5G was set up by legislature in New Hampshire, USA. It was the first legislation passed in the United States calling for the formation of a Commission to explore the health effects of 5G. The findings were published Nov-2020, and on the back of this, a Bill was introduced requiring a setback of 500m as a protective distance from mast radiation.
Their recommendation was evidence based, and as such, is globally applicable.
FINAL report = http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20report.pdf
Video of commission member Kent Chamberlin discussing NH Commission Setback Justification 28-Dec-2021 (20 mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWK74ie7krc
BILL = https://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/legacy/bs2016/billText.aspx?sy=2024&id=1797&txtFormat=html







J
Judith · 3 days ago
FULL DETAILS of the APPLICATIONS

3 sets of STREET HUBS (each comprising 2 application references)
One objection letter could be written for all 3 together.

COMMENTS by 28-MAY-2024

Each of the “FUL” applications = Installation of a multifunction hub unit featuring an integral advertisement display and defibrillator
Each of the “ADV” applications = Advertisement consent sought for 1no. 86 inch illuminated LCD screen affixed to a multifunction hub unit
• 113388/FUL/24 and 113389/ADV/24 = Pavement Adjacent To Card Factory Shaws Road Trafford Altrincham WA14 1RH
• 113390/FUL/24 and 113391/ADV/24 = Pavement Outside Altrincham Station Stamford New Road Altrincham WA14 1EN
• 113392/FUL/24 and 113393/ADV/24 = Pavement Outside 99 George Street Altrincham WA14 1RN

For more details – look at
TRAFFORD COUNCIL WEBSITE – PLANNING APPLICATIONS – SEARCH PAGE
https://pa.trafford.gov.uk/online-applications/
Input the mast application into the search field

By email to
FAO David Carr, Samuel Phillips (Case Officers)
[email protected]
cc COUNCILLORS for Altrincham
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]

• SUBJECT = “113388/FUL/24 + 113390/FUL/24 + 113392/FUL/24 (STREET HUBS) – OBJECTION”
• Include your full name and address.
• Carbon copy (cc) in the ward councillors
Suggested objections: These are brief points and can be expanded on
As a frequent visitor / resident, I object to this installation on the following grounds:

- An urbanised blight and a blemish to the local area.
- Unsightly.
- Clutter on pavement contrary to any Clean Streets Charter.
- Obstacle for mobility impaired, sight impaired and pushchairs. The installation will limit the flow of pedestrian movement.
- Unnecessary advertising, this installation is primarily an advertising hoarding with a cursory phone/ wifi/ etc attached.
- Excessively large illuminating screen that will disturb and confuse insects and birds.
- Constantly changing screens, an assault on the senses.
- There are plenty of studies now showing eye damage caused by the blue light on screens. Do we really need yet more?
- CCTV that invades our privacy.
- Likely to attract graffiti and antisocial behaviour despite the promise of monitoring it. Who will pay for the security, cleaning, repairs and maintenance?

-The types of electronics in these hubs emit ultra-sonic frequencies which affect both wildlife and people who can hear outside of normal spectrums. These frequencies cause headaches and nausea in those who can hear them. There are no plans to monitor noise emission, nor how to regulate it.
- Energy consumption. Who pays for the power to support their running 24/7? Who pays for the replacement solar panels? How are you justifying these costs and increase in energy use contrary to any Green or Climate Crisis Agenda, Net Zero. The council should be aiming to reduce energy consumption, not adding energy guzzling Street Hubs at a time when many are struggling to heat their homes.
- These Street Hubs are bringing ultrafast Wi-Fi, 4G & 5G antennas and small cell technology (ie millimetre wave technology) to the middle of our streets. Thus, they will bring microwave radiation (or radio frequency radiation / electromagnetic field RFR EMF) ever deeper into our communities where people live, work and shop. There are NO human studies on the cumulative effects of exposure to this radiation over a lifetime. This is new technology, there should be robust safety studies.
- Mast applications are accompanied by an ICNIRP certificate to guarantee safety of the installation. There is no ICNIRP certificate with this application, so how do we know that the hub operated within safe levels of radiation? The very nature of these street hubs is encouraging people to stand close to the screens, and dangerous levels of radiation.
- Solar panels leak cadmium and other toxic chemicals which will be harmful to local wildlife.
- No justification for needing a defibrillator in this area. Altrincham has several in place already. Adding defibrillators into applications is an excuse to introduce unnecessary advertising hubs.
J
Jane SS· 1 week ago
PA24/00907 | Proposed rooftop installation upgrade to the existing telecommunications equipment. Existing 3No. antennas to be removed and replaced with proposed 6No. antenna, proposed installation of 2No, quadpods, 1No. 600mm dish, 1No. 300mm dish and associated ancillary works; existing 1No. cabinet to be upgraded internally. | Cornish College Killigrew Street Falmouth Cornwall TR11 3QS
By: 17 May 2024 (? - it's an upgrade, so NO definitive date)
Link: https://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=S8E34EFGKRX00
Email: [email protected] cc councillors: [email protected]
Suggested objections: These are brief points and can be expanded on (please be sure to object to Appearance & Siting as that's what planners consider, you can also add any other issues re: health and environmental risks, power consumption, legal implications etc. Thank you.)
Site and Appearance – A horrendous heightening and additional lattice work to support more antennas and infrastructure on the roof of the Cornish College, set in the Falmouth Conservation Area. In close proximity to residences, businesses and Falmouth Marine School, The Crypt Pre-School and The Rainbow Tree Childcare, where folk including children would be involuntarily subjected to high levels of harmful radiation beaming from this mast throughout the day and night. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122011781.
The size and impact of this development is contrary to NPPF (2023) paras 128 & 131 which aims for well-designed, beautiful places, sympathetic to its history and character and consideration of community representation. This application would negatively impact the area's heritage significance and skyline. It would be contrary to Code of Practice Para 22 and 28, with the siting of the proposed installation representing a discordant, intrusive feature to the Conservation Area with its nearby historic heritage Grade II listed buildings. Also note the application’s Heritage Statement: ‘that the local community is engaged and informed throughout the process’.
Health: Public health effects: Transmitter density required for 5G means that more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, are potentially harmful to health. ICNIRP standards are mainly based on acute warming effects. In several thousand studies, biological effects such as DNA damage have been shown to occur at exposure levels FAR BELOW these standards. There are NO safety studies on the cumulative effects on health from exposure to these radiation emissions 24/7 over a lifetime. Studies show harm to people, wildlife and the environment. https://icbe-emf.org/ https://www.orsaa.org/
The ICNIRP certificate submitted is NOT sufficient to provide the necessary confirmation that the proposed mast would conform to the ICNIRP guidelines, AS FOLLOWS: The ICNIRP Guidelines state that people with "implantable medical devices" and "metallic implants" in the body are "outside the scope of these guidelines" (as mentioned on page 2 of the 2020 ICNIRP Guidelines report) and, therefore such people are particularly vulnerable and need to be afforded extra protection under the council's obligations within the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
There are many scenarios in which metal is used in the human body for medical reasons: Surgical – metal pins, plates, rods, discs, screws e.g. scoliosis surgery and joint replacement of knees and hips. Urinary, gynaecological and intestinal repairs – e.g. mesh repairs and copper contraceptive coils. Cardiovascular – implantable heart loop recorders, stents and pacemakers. Implants to treat and monitor health conditions, deliver drugs or to restore bodily functions e.g. diabetes related products. Magnetic cerebral spinal fluid shunts. Cochlear implants for hearing loss. Dental work – braces, implants, metal crowns, pins, denture arches, mercury amalgam fillings. What about body piercings?
This causes fear, anxiety, alarm and distress for those living close to a mast and as such these health effects are a material planning consideration on the grounds of siting.
The vital public health safeguard - the ICNIRP certificate is by: Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd and their agent WHP Telecoms Ltd, neither of which provide the UK mobile networks. Do they speculate to lease out the equipment to Three UK and Vodafone and possibly O2 and/or EE? Is there adequate evidence of poor connectivity to justify this ‘upgrade’? It may be good business for the corporations, but is it needed or wanted by the local community?
NPPF 121b. Please ask the applicant to provide further information to clarify the technical proposal and substantiate the ICNIRP certificate: calculations showing cumulative effects (taking into account other local sources, analysis of hotspots). Evidence of how vulnerable groups are screened and protected. No Exclusion zones are defined, please supply. Without these, how are you certain that folk in adjacent buildings are outside of the exclusion zone?
In the event of a breach of safety – who would be liable for any claim? Might it be Cornwall Council for granting permission? In the event of a fire on the roof equipment or harm to health from the emissions, is anyone insured?
Please note costs of £13k were awarded against Brighton and Hove City council in Nov 2021 for failing to address the health impacts of a proposed mast and to obtain adequate evidence of the assessment of the proximity of the mast to the school and the amended proposal. (Consent order 4/11/2021). Ref BH2021/01639.
With a view to the council’s Cornwall Climate Commitments – how do you reconcile the following?
Environmental implications and climate change targets - Carbon footprint: Each 5G mast requires approximately 3 x more power than a 4G mast (as much as 73 typical homes). http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire
With 5G’s greatly increased mobile traffic, electricity usage from telecommunications could create up to 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030; power demand would be the equivalent of 36 nuclear reactors or 7800 massive offshore wind farms worldwide. - http://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117/htm - http://www.wsimag.com/science-and-technology/64080-green-5g-or-red-alert
The France, Spain and California Green Parties, the France Climate Change Council, and Greenpeace East Asia have all warned of the climate footprint of 5G.
The French Climate Council states that an extra 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere by 5G - http://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201220-deploying-5g-will-lead-to-spike-in-co2-emissions-french-climate-council-warns
Legal firm Client Earth and telecoms consultants Strand Consult have expressed concerns about greenwashing by providers. - http://www.clientearth.org/media/wbglw3r3/clientearth-accountability-emergency.pdf
Add the application number PA24/00907 together with your name and address for your comment to be accepted by the Council.
J
Judith · 3 weeks ago
FULL DETAILS of the APPLICATION
COMMENTS by 17-MAY-2024
113398/FUL/24 | Installation of a multifunction hub unit featuring an integral advertisement display and defibrillator | Pavement Outside Boots School Road Sale M33 7XZ
And
113399/ADV/24 | Advertisement consent sought for 1no. 86 inch illuminated LCD screen affixed to a multifunction hub unit | Pavement Outside Boots School Road Sale M33 7XZ

For more details – look at
TRAFFORD COUNCIL WEBSITE – PLANNING APPLICATIONS – SEARCH PAGE
https://pa.trafford.gov.uk/online-applications/
Input the mast application into the search field: 113398/FUL/24 and 113399/ADV/24

By email to
FAO Aisling Friel (Case Officer)
[email protected]
cc COUNCILLORS for Sale Central
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],

• SUBJECT = “113398/FUL/24 + 113399/ADV/24 (STREET HUB) – OBJECTION”
• Include your full name and address.
• Carbon copy (cc) in the ward councillors
Suggested objections: These are brief points and can be expanded on
As a frequent visitor / resident, I object to this installation on the following grounds:

- An urbanised blight and a blemish to the local area.
- Unsightly.
- Clutter on pavement contrary to any Clean Streets Charter.
- Obstacle for mobility impaired, sight impaired and pushchairs. The installation will limit the flow of pedestrian movement.
- Unnecessary advertising, this installation is primarily an advertising hoarding with a cursory phone/ wifi/ etc attached.
- Excessively large illuminating screen that will disturb and confuse insects and birds.
- constantly changing screens, an assault on the senses.
- There are plenty of studies now showing eye damage caused by the blue light on screens. Do we really need yet more?
- CCTV that invades our privacy.
- Likely to attract graffiti and antisocial behaviour despite the promise of monitoring it. Who will pay for the security, cleaning, repairs and maintenance?

-The types of electronics in these hubs emit ultra-sonic frequencies which affect both wildlife and people who can hear outside of normal spectrums. These frequencies cause headaches and nausea in those who can hear them. There are no plans to monitor noise emission, nor how to regulate it.
- Energy consumption. Who pays for the power to support their running 24/7? Who pays for the replacement solar panels? How are you justifying these costs and increase in energy use contrary to any Green or Climate Crisis Agenda, Net Zero. The council should be aiming to reduce energy consumption, not adding energy guzzling Street Hubs at a time when many are struggling to heat their homes.
- These Street Hubs are bringing ultrafast Wi-Fi, 4G & 5G antennas and small cell technology (ie millimetre wave technology) to the middle of our streets. Thus, they will bring microwave radiation (or radio frequency radiation / electromagnetic field RFR EMF) ever deeper into our communities where people live, work and shop. There are NO human studies on the cumulative effects of exposure to this radiation over a lifetime. This is new technology, there should be robust safety studies.
- Mast applications are accompanied by an ICNIRP certificate to guarantee safety of the installation. There is no ICNIRP certificate with this application, so how do we know that the hub operated within safe levels of radiation? The very nature of these street hubs is encouraging people to stand close to the screens, and dangerous levels of radiation.
- Solar panels leak cadmium and other toxic chemicals which will be harmful to local wildlife.

NOTE
** These 2 applications are pretty much identical to the earlier applications 112719/FUL/24 & 112720/ADV/24, Pavement O/S Boots School Road Sale M33 7XZ, Proposed installation of 1no. new BT Street Hub, incorporating 75" LCD advert screens plus the removal of 2no. BT kiosks AND Advertisement consent sought for 2no. digital 75" LCD advert screens, one on either side of a BT Street Hub unit. These were REFUSED
Reason given = The proposed installation by virtue of its siting, height, massing, design and illumination would be visually intrusive and overly prominent, adding to visual clutter and appearing as an obtrusive feature in the street scene. The proposal be harmful to the street scene, the character of the area, and visual amenity generally contrary to policy JP-P1 of PfE, and policy in the National Planning Policy Framework.
The current application has a bigger screen, so over-prominence and visual clutter are still very much an issue.

J
Judith · 3 weeks ago
FULL DETAILS of the APPLICATION
COMMENTS by 13-MAY-2024
113281/TEL/24 | Installation of 20.0m High Street Pole on new root foundation, together with 6No. Antennas, 2No. 300 Dishes and 2No. Cabinets and associated ancillary works. (Notification for prior approval under Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015). | ADDRESS = Site On Hadfield Street. Old Trafford. M16 9FE

For more details – look at TRAFFORD COUNCIL WEBSITE – PLANNING APPLICATIONS – SEARCH PAGE
https://pa.trafford.gov.uk/online-applications/
Input the mast application into the search field: 113281/TEL/24

HOW TO RAISE AN OBJECTION
2 options for writing an objection
(1) SIGN IN TO THE ABOVE WEBSITE
(2) By email to
(3) FAO Michael Thompson (Case Officer)
[email protected]
cc COUNCILLORS for GORSE HILL and CORNBROOK
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

If using email,
• SUBJECT = “113281/TEL/24 – OBJECTION”
• Include your full name and address.
• Carbon copy (cc) in the ward councillors
This is a good way of highlighting concerns to the councillors and perhaps alerting them to issues, of which they are totally unaware!! NOTE: even if you raise your objections on the website, it is worth keeping a copy of this and sending to the councillors as an email.

WHO CAN RAISE AN OBJECTION?
NOTE: You do not have to be a local to raise an objection. You can just say that you visit the area, a friend in the area, work there etc.
POINTS TO MAKE
For a new mast, I would recommend talking about APPEARANCE and SITING first THEN health. It is worth mentioning health, as the more people who do so, the stronger the message to the planning dept and also local councillors.
It is worth looking at GOOGLE MAPS for the proposed site to get a feel for what will be close to the mast.
https://gridreferencefinder.com gives a precise location. E = 382330, N = 396866)

This application is for providing 4G and “essential 5G coverage”, all for VM02.

Some points of note
(1) Telecoms installations are overbearing and unnerving. For many people, they cause anxiety and stress.
(2) The impact of this proposal on the health and well-being of residents is a material planning consideration, which includes the fear and anxiety of harm.
(3) The 8 real-life 5G case studies which show serious harm to those who live / work close to 5G masts. This is a public safety issue. (See below)
(4) It is within 500m of Old Trafford Community Academy (approx. 300m), Big Life Schools (approx. 490m). St George’s Park playground is approx. 350m away.
(5) It is also within 500m of local residents. Botanica Apartments is just 150m away, and the housing east of these apartments also fall well within 500m. Children are deemed “sensitive receptors” at school, and this should apply at home too. The elderly are also vulnerable.
(6) The distance of 500m is of particular interest after the New Hampshire Commission recommended a setback of this distance for telecoms installations. Please see below for details.
(7) The SSSI states that “Cornerstone’s commercial relationship with VM02 has changed ………we no longer have visibility of VM02’s full update plan”. In this case, how accurate are the calculations to determine safety and how can Cornerstone guarantee the safety of the installation?
(8) ICNIRP guidelines (2020) specifically exclude those individuals with metal in their body or an active medical device. The Guidelines state that people with "implantable medical devices" and "metallic implants" in the body are "outside the scope of these guidelines".
Unless some sort of local risk assessment has been performed to demonstrate the contrary, it is highly likely that the ICNRIP certificate does not cover a large proportion of the local residents.
Such people are particularly vulnerable and need to be afforded extra protection under the council's obligations within the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
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.
(Examples of metal in the body include metal pins, plates, rods, discs, screws (hip/knee replacements) Cardiovascular – implantable heart loop recorders, stents and pacemakers. Implants to treat and monitor health conditions, deliver drugs or to restore bodily functions e.g. diabetes related products. Magnetic cerebral spinal fluid shunts. Cochlear implants for hearing loss. Dental work – braces, implants, metal crowns, pins, denture arches, mercury amalgam fillings.)


SOME USEFUL LINKS to be used in your objection letter

8 recently published case-studies demonstrate the real-life effect of 5G on human health. These clearly show that 5G deployment is a serious public safety issue.

The cases covered individuals living / working close to 5G antennae as well as a family holidaying close to one, and a young 8yo boy who suffered severe symptoms at school.
Symptoms included severe headaches, tinnitus, nosebleeds, insomnia, anxiety, memory loss, irregular pulse, skin rashes etc.
The distances from the antennae ranged from 5m to 125m (2023 cases); just under and over 500m (2 base stations), and 285m (2024 cases).

A summary of the first 6 cases can be found here https://www.journalserapublications.com/issues/v01/i01/JEPL_1020240101001.pdf

The more recent cases are here
http://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/a-woman-aged-82-years-with-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-since-almost-four-decades-developed-the-microwave-syndrome-after-insta.html
https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/a-woman-aged-82-years-with-electromagnetic.pdf

and
https://www.medtextpublications.com/open-access/an-eight-year-old-boy-developed-severe-headache-in-a-1582.pdf
New Hampshire Commission
In 2019, a Commission on 5G was set up by legislature in New Hampshire, USA. It was the first legislation passed in the United States calling for the formation of a Commission to explore the health effects of 5G. The findings were published Nov-2020, and on the back of this, a Bill was introduced requiring a setback of 500m as a protective distance from mast radiation.
Their recommendation was evidence based, and as such, is globally applicable.

FINAL report = http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20report.pdf
Video of commission member Kent Chamberlin discussing NH Commission Setback Justification 28-Dec-2021 (20 mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWK74ie7krc
BILL = https://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/legacy/bs2016/billText.aspx?sy=2024&id=1797&txtFormat=html




J
Judith · 3 weeks ago
FULL DETAILS of the APPLICATION
COMMENTS by 14-MAY-2024
113082/TEL/24 | Installation of a 25m-high telecommunications lattice tower supporting 2no. headframes to accommodate antennas and transmission dishes, plus ground-based equipment cabinets within a secure, fenced compound; and ancillary development thereto. Notification for prior approval under Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015) | Site On Torbay Road, Urmston, M33 5QQ

For more details – look at TRAFFORD COUNCIL WEBSITE – PLANNING APPLICATIONS – SEARCH PAGE
https://pa.trafford.gov.uk/online-applications/
Input the mast application into the search field: 113082/TEL/24

HOW TO RAISE AN OBJECTION
2 options for writing an objection
(1) SIGN IN TO THE ABOVE WEBSITE
(2) By email to
(3) FAO Glynn Davies (Case Officer)
[email protected]
cc COUNCILLORS for URMSTON
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]


If using email,
• SUBJECT = “113082/TEL/24 – OBJECTION”
• Include your full name and address.
• Carbon copy (cc) in the ward councillors
This is a good way of highlighting concerns to the councillors and perhaps alerting them to issues, of which they are totally unaware!! NOTE: even if you raise your objections on the website, it is worth keeping a copy of this and sending to the councillors as an email.

WHO CAN RAISE AN OBJECTION?
NOTE: You do not have to be a local to raise an objection. You can just say that you visit the area, a friend in the area, work there etc.
POINTS TO MAKE
For a new mast, I would recommend talking about APPEARANCE and SITING first THEN health. It is worth mentioning health, as the more people who do so, the stronger the message to the planning dept and also local councillors.
It is worth looking at GOOGLE MAPS for the proposed site to get a feel for what will be close to the mast.
https://gridreferencefinder.com gives a precise location. E = 377297, N = 393851

This application is for ICON Tower to install a shareable tower for the 4 big MNOs – EE, Three, Vodafone, O2, to provide 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G and in future 6G. Other small MNOs can use this too.

Some points of note
(1) Telecoms installations are overbearing and unnerving. For many people, they cause anxiety and stress. The top of the lattice tower will be clearly visible from neighbouring houses.
(2) The Application states that with 11 x 50+ m high pylons within 900m of the site, it is already an urbanised setting, but this should not act as an excuse to add yet more industrialising features to a green space.
(3) It is within 500m of a residential area to the North of the site. It is also about 200m away from both stables and an Equestrian Centre to the East of the site.
(4) Children are deemed “sensitive receptors” at school, and this should apply at home too. Elderly individuals are also vulnerable.
(5) The impact of this proposal on the health and well-being of residents is a material planning consideration, which includes the fear and anxiety of harm.
(6) The 8 real-life 5G case studies which show serious harm to those who live / work close to 5G masts. This is a public safety issue. (See below)
(7) The distance of 500m is of particular interest after the New Hampshire Commission recommended a setback of this distance for telecoms installations. Please see below for details.
(8) ICON Tower states, in the SSSI, that this installation will “offer the opportunity” to consolidate existing base station equipment and ground based masts. Hence, this is A PURELY SPECULATIVE APPLICATION. It promises that it will be implemented only when an operator applies to utilise the tower, and that it is “expected to instigate the removal of existing base stations”. It also assures us that this “will not lead to a proliferation of ground-based masts”. Two questions. (a) if an MNO has not yet applied to use this, HOW ON EARTH can ICON TOWER guarantee future safety of the installation when fully operational? (What calculations have been used to determine the safety?) (b) If only one MNO takes up the opportunity, or indeed if a smaller MNO applies (which currently does not have a presence in the area), then surely existing base-stations will continue to be used, and hence there WILL be a proliferation of ground-based masts. How will the council ensure that this DOES NOT happen and furthermore ensure that old ones are indeed removed?
(9) ICNIRP guidelines (2020) specifically exclude those individuals with metal in their body or an active medical device. The Guidelines state that people with "implantable medical devices" and "metallic implants" in the body are "outside the scope of these guidelines".
Unless some sort of local risk assessment has been performed to demonstrate the contrary, it is highly likely that the ICNRIP certificate does not cover a large proportion of the local residents.
Such people are particularly vulnerable and need to be afforded extra protection under the council's obligations within the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
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.
(Examples of metal in the body include metal pins, plates, rods, discs, screws (hip/knee replacements) Cardiovascular – implantable heart loop recorders, stents and pacemakers. Implants to treat and monitor health conditions, deliver drugs or to restore bodily functions e.g. diabetes related products. Magnetic cerebral spinal fluid shunts. Cochlear implants for hearing loss. Dental work – braces, implants, metal crowns, pins, denture arches, mercury amalgam fillings.)
(10) ICNIRP does NOT cover any wildlife or plants. This is a concern being so close to the horses at the Equestrian centre and stables.

SOME USEFUL LINKS to be used in your objection letter
8 recently published case-studies demonstrate the real-life effect of 5G on human health. These clearly show that 5G deployment is a serious public safety issue.

The cases covered individuals living / working close to 5G antennae as well as a family holidaying close to one, and a young 8yo boy who suffered severe symptoms at school.
Symptoms included severe headaches, tinnitus, nosebleeds, insomnia, anxiety, memory loss, irregular pulse, skin rashes etc.
The distances from the antennae ranged from 5m to 125m (2023 cases); just under and over 500m (2 base stations), and 285m (2024 cases).

A summary of the first 6 cases can be found here https://www.journalserapublications.com/issues/v01/i01/JEPL_1020240101001.pdf

The more recent cases are here
http://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/a-woman-aged-82-years-with-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-since-almost-four-decades-developed-the-microwave-syndrome-after-insta.html
https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/a-woman-aged-82-years-with-electromagnetic.pdf

and
https://www.medtextpublications.com/open-access/an-eight-year-old-boy-developed-severe-headache-in-a-1582.pdf
New Hampshire Commission
In 2019, a Commission on 5G was set up by legislature in New Hampshire, USA. It was the first legislation passed in the United States calling for the formation of a Commission to explore the health effects of 5G. The findings were published Nov-2020, and on the back of this, a Bill was introduced requiring a setback of 500m as a protective distance from mast radiation.
Their recommendation was evidence based, and as such, is globally applicable.

FINAL report = http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20report.pdf
Video of commission member Kent Chamberlin discussing NH Commission Setback Justification 28-Dec-2021 (20 mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWK74ie7krc
BILL = https://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/legacy/bs2016/billText.aspx?sy=2024&id=1797&txtFormat=html




J
Jane SS· 4 weeks ago
24/00283/TNO 20m high Telecommunications mast and equipment cabinets (Telecommunication Notification) Queens Sports Club Moorlands View Halifax Calderdale HX1 2XQ

By: Thu 25 Apr 2024

Link: https://portal.calderdale.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=SAWZGRDWGL000

Register at council site to comment OR email direct
Email: [email protected] cc councillors: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Suggested objections: These are brief points and can be expanded on (please be sure to object to Appearance & Siting as that's what planners consider, you can also add any other issues re: health and environmental risks, power consumption etc. Thank you.)

Appearance & Site: A hideous towering 20m pole with its associated enormous cabinets at the base would be an overbearing and harmful form of development so close to a treasured Conservation Area with its many listed buildings, properties and monuments and close to Grade II listed St Jude’s Church. Protect our Heritage Assets rather than allowing this highly visible industrialising and alien eyesore of imposing urban clutter. It is in close proximity to Halifax Children’s Place Day Nursery where young children aka ‘sensitive receptors’ would be subjected to high levels of the emissions of microwave radiation pollution throughout the day and night. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122011781
There is already adequate signal according to https://www.signalchecker.co.uk/halifax so, is there justification for this monstrous eyesore?

Health: Public health effects: Transmitter density required for 5G means that more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, are potentially harmful to health. ICNIRP standards are mainly based on acute warming / thermal effects. In several thousand studies, biological effects such as DNA damage have been shown to occur at exposure levels FAR BELOW these standards. There are NO safety studies on the cumulative effects on health from exposure to these radiation emissions 24/7 over a lifetime. Studies show harm to people, wildlife and the environment. https://icbe-emf.org/ https://www.orsaa.org/

The installation is proposed by Cornerstone who wish to provide the mast for other telecoms service providers such as VM02, however no company VM02 is listed on Companies House register.


The ICNIRP certificate submitted is NOT sufficient to provide the necessary confirmation that the proposed mast would conform to the ICNIRP guidelines, AS FOLLOWS: The ICNIRP Guidelines state that people with "implantable medical devices" and "metallic implants" in the body are "outside the scope of these guidelines" (as mentioned on page 2 of the 2020 ICNIRP Guidelines report) and, therefore such people are particularly vulnerable and need to be afforded extra protection under the council's obligations within the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
There are many scenarios in which metal is used in the human body for medical reasons: Surgical – metal pins, plates, rods, discs, screws e.g. scoliosis surgery and joint replacement of knees and hips. Urinary, gynaecological and intestinal repairs – e.g. mesh repairs and copper contraceptive coils. Cardiovascular – implantable heart loop recorders, stents and pacemakers. Implants to treat and monitor health conditions, deliver drugs or to restore bodily functions e.g. diabetes related products. Magnetic cerebral spinal fluid shunts. Cochlear implants for hearing loss. Dental work – braces, implants, metal crowns, pins, denture arches, mercury amalgam fillings. What about body piercings?
This causes fear, anxiety, alarm and distress for those living close to a mast and as such these health effects are a material planning consideration on the grounds of siting.

Environmental implications and climate change targets - Carbon footprint: Each 5G mast requires approximately 3 x more power than a 4G mast (as much as 73 typical homes). http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire
With 5G’s greatly increased mobile traffic, electricity usage from telecommunications could create up to 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030; power demand would be the equivalent of 36 nuclear reactors or 7800 massive offshore wind farms worldwide. - http://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117/htm - http://www.wsimag.com/science-and-technology/64080-green-5g-or-red-alert
The France, Spain and California Green Parties, the France Climate Change Council, and Greenpeace East Asia have all warned of the climate footprint of 5G.
The French Climate Council states that an extra 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere by 5G - http://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201220-deploying-5g-will-lead-to-spike-in-co2-emissions-french-climate-council-warns
Legal firm Client Earth and telecoms consultants Strand Consult have expressed concerns about greenwashing by providers. - http://www.clientearth.org/media/wbglw3r3/clientearth-accountability-emergency.pdf
This indicates an incompatible use of the land.
By virtue of the nuisance and credible harm or injury to the local residents and to the local area, being sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the development, the application should be refused.

Add the application number 24/00283/TNO together with your name and address for your comment to be accepted by the Council.
J
Jane SS· 4 weeks ago
24/0299/TEL The proposed installation of a shareable 25 metre high lattice tower supporting up to 12 no. antennas and up to 4 no. dishes, together with up to 6 no. ground based cabinets, 1 no. meter cabinet and ancillary development thereto including compound fencing and proposed hedges. | Glenfield Sports Ground Gynsill Lane Glenfield, Leicester. Leicestershire LE7 7AG

By: Wed 08 May 2024

Link: https://pa.blaby.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=SBM6A9CYK9800

Register at council site to comment OR email direct
Email: [email protected] cc councillors: [email protected], [email protected],

Suggested objections: These are brief points and can be expanded on (please be sure to object to Appearance & Siting as that's what planners consider, you can also add any other issues re: health and environmental risks, power consumption etc. Thank you.)

Appearance & Site: I object to this hideous towering 25m lattice tower, cabinets and vast compound with a fence that will add overbearing, industrialised urban clutter to this area. It is too close to the Sports centre and will stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.
The applicants plans and drawings use the Post Code LE3 8GJ indicating a confusing application that does not comply with the Code of Practice – the application should be refused.

Health: Public health effects: Transmitter density required for 5G means that more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, are potentially harmful to health. ICNIRP standards are mainly based on acute warming effects. In several thousand studies, biological effects such as DNA damage have been shown to occur at exposure levels FAR BELOW these standards. There are NO safety studies on the cumulative effects on health from exposure to these radiation emissions 24/7 over a lifetime. Studies show harm to people, wildlife and the environment. https://icbe-emf.org/ https://www.orsaa.org/

The applicant Icon Tower Infrastructure Ltd also provides the ICNIRP safety certificate, yet they are not the operators of any telecommunications equipment, they merely lease space. So who is liable for any breach of safety?

The ICNIRP certificate submitted is NOT sufficient to provide the necessary confirmation that the proposed mast would conform to the ICNIRP guidelines, AS FOLLOWS: The ICNIRP Guidelines state that people with "implantable medical devices" and "metallic implants" in the body are "outside the scope of these guidelines" (as mentioned on page 2 of the 2020 ICNIRP Guidelines report) and, therefore such people are particularly vulnerable and need to be afforded extra protection under the council's obligations within the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
There are many scenarios in which metal is used in the human body for medical reasons.
This causes fear, anxiety, alarm and distress for those living close to a mast and as such these health effects are a material planning consideration on the grounds of siting.

Environmental implications and climate change targets - Carbon footprint: Each 5G mast requires approximately 3 x more power than a 4G mast (as much as 73 typical homes). http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire
With 5G’s greatly increased mobile traffic, electricity usage from telecommunications could create up to 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030; power demand would be the equivalent of 36 nuclear reactors or 7800 massive offshore wind farms worldwide. - http://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117/htm - http://www.wsimag.com/science-and-technology/64080-green-5g-or-red-alert
The France, Spain and California Green Parties, the France Climate Change Council, and Greenpeace East Asia have all warned of the climate footprint of 5G.
The French Climate Council states that an extra 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere by 5G - http://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201220-deploying-5g-will-lead-to-spike-in-co2-emissions-french-climate-council-warns
Legal firm Client Earth and telecoms consultants Strand Consult have expressed concerns about greenwashing by providers. - http://www.clientearth.org/media/wbglw3r3/clientearth-accountability-emergency.pdf
This indicates an incompatible use of the land.

By virtue of the harm, injury and nuisance to the local residents and to the local area, being sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the development, the application should be refused.

Add the application number 24/0299/TEL together with your name and address for your comment to be accepted by the Council.
J
Jane SS· 4 weeks ago
24/0298/TEL Application to determine if prior approval is required for the installation for a shareable telecommunications base station installation comprising a 25m lattice tower supporting up to 12 no antennas and up to 4 no dishes on 2 no headframes together with up to 5 no ground based cabinets, 1 no meter cabinet and ancillary development thereto including compound fencing. Glenfield Parish Council Land Mill Lane Glenfield, Leicester. LE3 8JW

By: Mon 06 May 2024

Link: https://pa.blaby.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=SBM69MCYK9600

Register at council site to comment OR email direct
Email: [email protected] cc councillors: [email protected], [email protected]

Suggested objections: These are brief points and can be expanded on (please be sure to object to Appearance & Siting as that's what planners consider, you can also add any other issues re: health and environmental risks, power consumption etc. Thank you.)
Appearance & Site: A hideous towering 25m lattice tower with an enormous, fenced compound at the base would be an overbearing and harmful form of development so close to a treasured Conservation Area with its many listed buildings, properties and monuments. Protect our Heritage Assets rather than allowing this highly visible industrialising and alien eyesore of imposing urban clutter.

Health: Public health effects: Transmitter density required for 5G means that more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, are potentially harmful to health. ICNIRP standards are mainly based on acute warming effects. In several thousand studies, biological effects such as DNA damage have been shown to occur at exposure levels FAR BELOW these standards. There are NO safety studies on the cumulative effects on health from exposure to these radiation emissions 24/7 over a lifetime. Studies show harm to people, wildlife and the environment. https://icbe-emf.org/ https://www.orsaa.org/

The applicant Icon Tower Infrastructure Ltd also provides the ICNIRP safety certificate, yet they are not the operators of any telecommunications equipment, they merely lease space. So who is liable for any breach of safety?

The ICNIRP certificate submitted is NOT sufficient to provide the necessary confirmation that the proposed mast would conform to the ICNIRP guidelines, AS FOLLOWS: The ICNIRP Guidelines state that people with "implantable medical devices" and "metallic implants" in the body are "outside the scope of these guidelines" (as mentioned on page 2 of the 2020 ICNIRP Guidelines report) and, therefore such people are particularly vulnerable and need to be afforded extra protection under the council's obligations within the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
There are many scenarios in which metal is used in the human body for medical reasons: Surgical – metal pins, plates, rods, discs, screws e.g. scoliosis surgery and joint replacement of knees and hips. Urinary, gynaecological and intestinal repairs – e.g. mesh repairs and copper contraceptive coils. Cardiovascular – implantable heart loop recorders, stents and pacemakers. Implants to treat and monitor health conditions, deliver drugs or to restore bodily functions e.g. diabetes related products. Magnetic cerebral spinal fluid shunts. Cochlear implants for hearing loss. Dental work – braces, implants, metal crowns, pins, denture arches, mercury amalgam fillings. What about body piercings?
This causes fear, anxiety, alarm and distress for those living close to a mast and as such these health effects are a material planning consideration on the grounds of siting.

Environmental implications and climate change targets - Carbon footprint: Each 5G mast requires approximately 3 x more power than a 4G mast (as much as 73 typical homes). http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire
With 5G’s greatly increased mobile traffic, electricity usage from telecommunications could create up to 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030; power demand would be the equivalent of 36 nuclear reactors or 7800 massive offshore wind farms worldwide. - http://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117/htm - http://www.wsimag.com/science-and-technology/64080-green-5g-or-red-alert
The France, Spain and California Green Parties, the France Climate Change Council, and Greenpeace East Asia have all warned of the climate footprint of 5G.
The French Climate Council states that an extra 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere by 5G - http://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201220-deploying-5g-will-lead-to-spike-in-co2-emissions-french-climate-council-warns
Legal firm Client Earth and telecoms consultants Strand Consult have expressed concerns about greenwashing by providers. - http://www.clientearth.org/media/wbglw3r3/clientearth-accountability-emergency.pdf
This indicates an incompatible use of the land.
By virtue of the nuisance and credible harm or injury to the local residents and to the local area, being sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the development, the application should be refused.

Add the application number 24/0298/TEL together with your name and address for your comment to be accepted by the Council.
J
Jane SS· 4 weeks ago
24/W/00029 Prior notification under Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the proposed installation of 1no. 20m tower to host 6no. antennas, 1no. transmission dish alongside ancillary works including, but not limited to, 3no. equipment cabinets. Pavement Verge, Park Barn Drive, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 8EX

By: Sat 04 May 2024

Link: https://publicaccess.guildford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_GUILD_DCAPR_206475

Register at council site OR email direct
Email: [email protected] cc councillors: [email protected], [email protected] [email protected]

Suggested objections: These are brief points and can be expanded on (please be sure to object to Appearance & Siting as that's what planners consider, you can also add any other issues re: health and environmental risks, power consumption etc. Thank you.)
This is a new site that lies several meters away from the existing pole and cabinets, as such it should be viewed as a new installation rather than a replacement. Therefore, please ensure it is treated as a Prior Approval application which should be fully adjudicated as any other planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. According to ‘Changes to permitted development rights for electronic communications infrastructure: technical consultation’ of 7 March 2022, paragraph 10, new ground based masts: All new masts still require the Prior Approval of the Local Planning Authority, and consideration of community representation. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-technical-consultation/outcome/changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-government-response-to-the-technical-consultation

Appearance & Site: A hideous towering 20m pole and cabinets in unsightly drab colour, it is an overbearing and harmful form of development. A highly visible industrialising and alien eyesore to this residential road. There is no screening to hide this imposing urban clutter. In close proximity to Barnwood Play Area and Park Barn Drive park.

Health: Public health effects: Transmitter density required for 5G means that more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, are potentially harmful to health. ICNIRP standards are mainly based on acute warming effects. In several thousand studies, biological effects such as DNA damage have been shown to occur at exposure levels FAR BELOW these standards. There are NO safety studies on the cumulative effects on health from exposure to these radiation emissions 24/7 over a lifetime. Studies show harm to people, wildlife and the environment. https://icbe-emf.org/ https://www.orsaa.org/

The ICNIRP certificate submitted is NOT sufficient to provide the necessary confirmation that the proposed mast would conform to the ICNIRP guidelines, AS FOLLOWS: The ICNIRP Guidelines state that people with "implantable medical devices" and "metallic implants" in the body are "outside the scope of these guidelines" (as mentioned on page 2 of the 2020 ICNIRP Guidelines report) and, therefore such people are particularly vulnerable and need to be afforded extra protection under the council's obligations within the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
There are many scenarios in which metal is used in the human body for medical reasons: Surgical – metal pins, plates, rods, discs, screws e.g. scoliosis surgery and joint replacement of knees and hips. Urinary, gynaecological and intestinal repairs – e.g. mesh repairs and copper contraceptive coils. Cardiovascular – implantable heart loop recorders, stents and pacemakers. Implants to treat and monitor health conditions, deliver drugs or to restore bodily functions e.g. diabetes related products. Magnetic cerebral spinal fluid shunts. Cochlear implants for hearing loss. Dental work – braces, implants, metal crowns, pins, denture arches, mercury amalgam fillings. What about body piercings?
This causes fear, anxiety, alarm and distress for those living close to a mast and as such these health effects are a material planning consideration on the grounds of siting.

Environmental implications and climate change targets - Carbon footprint: Each 5G mast requires approximately 3 x more power than a 4G mast (as much as 73 typical homes). http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire
With 5G’s greatly increased mobile traffic, electricity usage from telecommunications could create up to 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030; power demand would be the equivalent of 36 nuclear reactors or 7800 massive offshore wind farms worldwide. - http://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117/htm - http://www.wsimag.com/science-and-technology/64080-green-5g-or-red-alert
The France, Spain and California Green Parties, the France Climate Change Council, and Greenpeace East Asia have all warned of the climate footprint of 5G.
The French Climate Council states that an extra 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere by 5G - http://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201220-deploying-5g-will-lead-to-spike-in-co2-emissions-french-climate-council-warns
Legal firm Client Earth and telecoms consultants Strand Consult have expressed concerns about greenwashing by providers. - http://www.clientearth.org/media/wbglw3r3/clientearth-accountability-emergency.pdf
This indicates an incompatible use of the land.

According to The National Planning Policy Framework (2023)

• Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places –section 8. para 96
• Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment-section 15. para 180
• The number of masts should be kept to a minimum and equipment should be sympathetically designed -section 10. para 119
• Policies should prioritise full fibre connections (as these connections will, in almost all cases, provide the optimum solution) -section 10- para118

By virtue of the harm, injury and nuisance to the local residents and to the local area, being sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the development, the application should be refused.

Add the application number 24/W/00029 together with your name and address for your comment to be accepted by the Council.
J
Jane SS· 1 month ago
24/AP/0524 | Prior Approval notification for installation of a new 20m-high monopole with 6no. antennas and 2no. 300m transmission dishes; plus 2no. ground-based equipment cabinets; and ancillary development thereto. | Grove Hill Road (Opposite Its Junction With Camberwell Grove) London Southwark SE22

By: Sat 13 Apr 2024

Link: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=S9IKT2KBN1200

Email: [email protected] cc councillors: [email protected], [email protected]

Suggested objections: These are brief points and can be expanded on (please be sure to object to Appearance & Siting as that's what planners consider, you can also add any other issues re: health and environmental risks, power consumption etc. Thank you.)
Appearance & Site: A hideous towering mast and cabinets in unsightly drab colour, it is an overbearing and harmful form of development. A highly visible eyesore to the road that could cause visibility issues to road users, cyclists & pedestrians. In close proximity to Dog Hill Kennel School and Nursery. Within a Conservation Area.

Health: Public health effects: Transmitter density required for 5G means that more people will be exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and at levels that emerging evidence suggests, are potentially harmful to health. ICNIRP standards are mainly based on acute warming effects, with more than one degree of temperature increase. In several thousand studies, biological effects such as DNA damage have been shown to occur at exposure levels FAR BELOW these standards. There are NO safety studies on the cumulative effects on health from exposure to these radiation emissions 24/7 over a lifetime. Studies show harm to people, wildlife and the environment. https://icbe-emf.org/ https://www.orsaa.org/

The ICNIRP certificate submitted is NOT sufficient to provide the necessary confirmation that the proposed mast would conform to the ICNIRP guidelines, AS FOLLOWS: The ICNIRP Guidelines state that people with "implantable medical devices" and "metallic implants" in the body are "outside the scope of these guidelines" (as mentioned on page 2 of the 2020 ICNIRP Guidelines report) and, therefore such people are particularly vulnerable and need to be afforded extra protection under the council's obligations within the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
There are many scenarios in which metal is used in the human body for medical reasons: Surgical – metal pins, plates, rods, discs, screws e.g. scoliosis surgery and joint replacement of knees and hips. Urinary, gynaecological and intestinal repairs – e.g. mesh repairs and copper contraceptive coils. Cardiovascular – implantable heart loop recorders, stents and pacemakers. Implants to treat and monitor health conditions, deliver drugs or to restore bodily functions e.g. diabetes related products. Magnetic cerebral spinal fluid shunts. Cochlear implants for hearing loss. Dental work – braces, implants, metal crowns, pins, denture arches, mercury amalgam fillings. What about body piercings?
This causes fear, anxiety, alarm and distress for those living close to a mast and as such these health effects are a material planning consideration on the grounds of siting.

Environmental implications and climate change targets - Carbon footprint: Each 5G mast requires approximately 3 x more power than a 4G mast (as much as 73 typical homes). http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire
With 5G’s greatly increased mobile traffic, electricity usage from telecommunications could create up to 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030; power demand would be the equivalent of 36 nuclear reactors or 7800 massive offshore wind farms worldwide. - http://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/6/1/117/htm - http://www.wsimag.com/science-and-technology/64080-green-5g-or-red-alert
The France, Spain and California Green Parties, the France Climate Change Council, and Greenpeace East Asia have all warned of the climate footprint of 5G.
The French Climate Council states that an extra 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere by 5G - http://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201220-deploying-5g-will-lead-to-spike-in-co2-emissions-french-climate-council-warns
Legal firm Client Earth and telecoms consultants Strand Consult have expressed concerns about greenwashing by providers. - http://www.clientearth.org/media/wbglw3r3/clientearth-accountability-emergency.pdf
This indicates an incompatible use of the land.

According to The National Planning Policy Framework (2023)

• Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places –section 8. para 96
• Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment-section 15. para 180
• The number of masts should be kept to a minimum and equipment should be sympathetically designed -section 10. para 119
• Policies should prioritise full fibre connections (as these connections will, in almost all cases, provide the optimum solution) -section 10- para118

By virtue of the harm, injury and nuisance to the local residents and to the local area, being sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the development, the application should be refused.

Add the application number 24/AP/0524 together with your name and address for your comment to be accepted by the Council.
P
Pamela Stott· 1 month ago
I have done 5 objections to these applications and can say that there are 56 days for comments. It isn't obvious whether a public notice from the council has been put up on the site showing the date for comments deadline which would be 56 days from the outset (Beginning of March in this case).This wuld appear in the document list but I haven't had time to go through everything listed.
View more (15)