URGENT - Your help required by 14th June to stop Government opening hell gates to 5G proliferation

(You must READ this page in full before you can do the survey. This is a TEMPLATE and ALL answers provided in red to copy and paste. Don't skip anything)

Introduction


You may not know this but there is right now a serious Government consultation on changes to planning permissions for electronic communications infrastructure. Information about this is provided below by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:


https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-technical-consultation


What this means in practice is that Councils can bypass talking to the Public and put up telecoms infrastructure, particularly 5G monopoles and small cell systems, without getting input and approval from residents and locals. It also means that they can bribe the public to put these antennas on private land without any consideration for how this may affect other residents and neighbours.


Most of the research in support of 5G has been sponsored by the Telecoms industry themselves. Ofcom, the Telecoms regulator, has dangerous conflicts of interest and is actively censoring any debate that questions the safety of 5G technologies since they also control what can be shown on television.


The telecoms industry do not care for human health and there is significant evidence that non-ionising EMF radiation is a risk to the Public and needs to be halted urgently under the Precautionary Principle.


The effects of 5G infrastructure are uninsurable meaning no council is protected against claims for harm, loss or injury to humans.


Home-owners need to know that living next to 5G towers, monopoles, antennas and other infrastructure can devalue the price of property.


As always, the Government have put this consultation out with little publicity and sneakily brought in a tight schedule so that all submissions must be made by Monday 14th June. The survey is of course far too technical for the layman person to complete hence why we are assisting you with this.


Please follow instructions below and share widely to get as many submissions in as possible.


(Survey takes no more than 10 minutes to read and paste responses into the boxes. If any issues with opening the survey, try a different browser)


We give thanks and credit to https://stop5g.co.uk/ for providing assistance with the responses that follow.

Follow this link to start the survey:


https://consult.communities.gov.uk/digital-infrastructure-planning/technical-consultation-on-permitted-development-ri/


You will need to complete ALL SECTIONS in order to SUBMIT at the end.


The submission will go directly to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government who will acknowledge receipt by sending you a return email so make sure you use a valid email address.


Survey questions and recommended responses to answer them Just copy and paste the suggested comments in RED below from this page into the survey. You MUST answer ALL questions in all sections otherwise you may not be able to submit


SECTION: About You


Make sure you pick the option for 'Personal view' as a member of the public:


Other than selecting this option you only need to provide your name and email and nothing else.


SECTION: Radio Equipment Housing


Question 1.


The Government has committed to make it easier to deploy radio equipment housing without the need for prior approval. This is to support the deployment of 5G and incentivise the use of existing sites for site sharing.


1A) To implement this, we would welcome your views on the following proposals:


On Article 2(3) land to:

  • permit single developments up to 2.5m3 without the need for prior approval;

  • permit single developments exceeding 2.5m3 subject to prior approval.

The above proposals would not apply on land on or within sites of special scientific interest.


Suggested response:


This must not be allowed because the equipment has not been safety-tested for non-thermal biological effects on people or any other living creature. Harm caused by the technological equipment is not insurable because the insurance companies refuse to provide indemnity cover for something that is sure to cause harm.

The digital economy act 2017 has already made it easy for telecoms infrastructure companies to build on private land without obstruction from land owners and local authorities. Yet, according to the 2020 consensus statement of UK and International Medical and scientific experts and Practitioners on Health Effects of Non-Ionising Radiation (NIR), legal authorities have validated the causal link between RFR and tumours.


The incidence of these kinds of brain tumours are on the rise in the UK, despite the concerted efforts of telecoms companies to downplay the findings. This is a disaster waiting to happen: the more emissions, the more people will start to become ill.


The UK government has a duty of care towards its constituent members to consider these effects. Thousands of doctors, scientists and engineers have appealed and given ethical warnings. These include but are no means limited to the 5G International appeal, council of Europe resolution 1815, Freiburger Appeal, Canadian doctors Declarations to Health Canada, Scientist 5G Appeal to the EU and Russian International Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. How many organisations of expert scientists, doctors and engineers need to scream at their governments before the government starts to listen and apply the Precautionary Principle until further independent research has been carried out on this technology? There are safer options, wired options. why are these not being considered?


1B) To implement this we would welcome your views on the following proposal:

  • To permit the installation, alteration or replacement of radio equipment housing within the boundaries of a permitted compound, without the need for prior approval, subject to measures to mitigate visual impact. This proposal would apply on all land except land on or within sites of special scientific interest.

We recognise that conditions would be needed to ensure that new equipment housing does not have an adverse visual impact on the local area. We therefore particularly welcome comments on what measures would be most appropriate to mitigate visual impact.


Suggested response:


The visual aspects are very much low down on the priority list. Cabinets block pavements & make it difficult for pushchairs etc. Without local oversight the telcos may not have checked the plans properly. Local controls for physical obstruction are essential for practical reasons. Often houses and schools fall within the exclusion zones. Affected parties must be notified, often, even under the existing regulations, this still does not happen.

The main concern should be the harm the technology causes, because this is very significant, and backed up by a weight of scientific evidence.


SECTION: Strengthening existing ground-based masts


Question 2.


The Government has committed to make it easier to strengthen existing masts without the need for prior approval to be given by the local planning authority. This is to encourage use and sharing of existing masts and so limit the need for new ones.


2A) To implement this, we would welcome your views on the following proposals:

  • To permit the alteration or replacement of existing masts with wider masts, subject to the following limits: on all land, for existing masts less than one metre wide, permit increasing the width by up to two-thirds without the need for prior approval;

  • where an existing mast is greater than one metre wide, permit increases in width without the need for prior approval. Subject to consultation responses this would be by either:

(a) up to one half or two metres (whichever is greater) on all land (including Article 2(3) land and land on a highway); or

(b) up to one third or one metre (whichever is greater) on Article 2(3) land and land on a highway, and one half or two metres on all other land.

  • on all land permit greater increases in width than proposed above subject to prior approval

  • that any change in width is calculated by comparing the widest part of an existing mast with the widest part of the new altered or replacement mast.

The above proposals would not apply on land on or within sites of special scientific interest.


Suggested response:


None of these proposed changes should be allowed without someone taking responsibility for it and who is willing to be held accountable for the potential harm the technology causes.

As question 1, please stop all roll out that increases emf emissions in favour of safer wired alternatives.


If the alteration includes the replacement of antenna with 5G phased array technology, or increased 4G radial array output then the increase in exposure and change in type of exposure must be risk assessed and proven safe against the evidence to the contrary.

Councils will still be subject to their obligations under wider planning law and human rights, equalities act, environmental protection etc.


2B) For existing masts greater than one metre wide we have proposed two alternative options: :


Permit the alteration or replacement of existing masts with wider masts, subject to the following limits:

  • Option A) up to one half or two metres (whichever is greater) on all land (including Article 2(3) land and land on a highway), or

  • Option B) up to one third or one metre (whichever is greater) on Article 2(3) land and land on a highway, and one half or two metres on all other land.

Greater increases in width than proposed above would be subject to prior approval. The above proposal would also not apply on land on or within sites of special scientific interest.


Which of these two options do you consider to be most appropriate?


If you would make any further comments, please include these in your response to Question 2A (above).


Suggested response: THERE IS AN OPTION A AND B. DO NOT SELECT ANY OPTION


Question 3.


The Government has committed to make it easier to strengthen existing masts without the need for prior approval to be given by the local planning authority. This is to encourage use and sharing of existing masts and so limit the need for new ones.


To implement this, we would welcome your views on the following proposals:


To permit the alteration or replacement of existing masts up to a new height of 25 metres, without the need for prior approval, outside of Article 2(3) land.


The Government also proposes to align permitted development height limits for alterations to existing masts with those proposed for new masts. This would permit the alteration or replacement of existing masts subject to the following limits:

  • on Article 2(3) land and land on a highway, up to a new height of 25 metres subject to prior approval;

  • on all other land, up to a new height of 30 metres, subject to prior approval;

The above proposals would not apply on land on or within sites of special scientific interest.


Suggested response:


No. The issues have nothing to do with the granularity of height and width. Sharing of masts is more efficient for Telco of course, but the amount of traffic will be the same.

Enhancement and enlargement of masts must not be given carte blanche because the replacement masts may well be far more damaging and dangerous, particularly if the replacements are 5G antenna. There must be public accountability regardless of whether it is just a replacement.

On one hand the government are declaring measures due to a ‘climate emergency’. Just one 5G mast creates the same annual energy demand of 35 homes.

The ‘carbon and pollution footprint’ arising from use of resources and the power needed to service the entire infrastructure must be considered under sustainability criteria. There are a wealth of studies highlighting the conflict with sustainability goals, whilst councils are virtue signalling on the climate emergency and turning a blind eye to the impact of Telco under their watch.

Please do not roll out any more masts which increase emissions until independent (i.e. non-industry funded) research has been undertaken, and safer alternatives have been considered.


SECTION: Building-based masts


Question 4.


The Government has committed make it easier to deploy building-based masts nearer to highways, subject to prior approval. This is to support deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage encourage using existing structures.


To implement this, we would welcome your views on the following proposal:


Permitting the installations of masts within 20 metres of the highway on buildings that are less than 15 metres in height. Existing limits to the location and heights of masts and number of antennae that can be deployed on building would remain. This proposal would not apply on Article 2(3) land or land on or within sites of special scientific interest.


Suggested response:


There are not enough details provided in the question.

Again, the question on liability and responsibility must be paramount.

The public is not willing to accept liability for these installations. There are already increasing reports of people being made ill just from exposure to current radiation levels encountered in the street, when commuting and also near their homes. These issues will only get worse as networks are expanded with no checks or balances and no regard to Human Rights.

The more masts, the more emissions, the more risk. There is ample evidence of cell towers causing cancer clusters.


Question 5.


The Government wishes to go further to enable the deployment of building-based masts nearer to highways. This is to support deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage encourage using existing structures.


5A) Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to permit shorter masts on buildings without the need for prior approval, subject to measures to mitigate visual impact?


Yes

No


Suggested response: SELECT NO


5B) We would welcome your views on this proposal. We particularly welcome comments on the measures proposed to mitigate visual impact:

  • limiting the height of masts that can be deployed without the need for prior approval to a height of no more than 6 metres above the highest part of the building, and

  • only applying this permitted development right outside of Article 2(3) land and sites of special scientific interest.

Suggested response (paste all the following into the box for 5B):


5 A:


Lowering masts just brings radiation closer. Unlimited approval also proliferates the number of masts and cells without limit, which in turn increases Carbon footprint and cumulative electrosmog.

The cumulative effects of any pollutant have to be considered in planning law.

The evidence of the polluting effects of RFR must still be properly assessed under an 'incompatible or unacceptable use' designation as a material planning consideration.


5 B:


Limiting the height may be useful, however that can result in Exclusion Zones falling nearer to houses and schools. The phrase 'without prior approval' essentially means there is no-one or organisation or corporation willing to be held accountable for potential harm caused by the masts. This is not acceptable - ever.

We need to reduce exposure. children are particularly affected. The National Toxicology Program Study found clear evidence of cancer in rats. The increase in emissions we have already seen has. led to such proliferation in sickness and disability in the most sensitive people, that there are now a number of support groups such as ES-UK (www.es-uk.info)


SECTION: New ground-based masts


Question 6.


The Government has committed to enable higher masts, subject to prior approval. This is to support deployment of 5G, extend mobile coverage and to support the sharing of masts.


To implement this, we would welcome your views on the following proposals:

  • On Article 2(3) land, and land which is on a highway, to permit new ground-based mast up to 25 metres in height, subject to prior approval

  • On all other land, to permit new ground-based mast up to 30 metres in height, subject to prior approval

The above proposals would not apply on land on or within sites of special scientific interest.


Suggested response:


Preserving 'prior approval' process sounds positive but is almost meaningless since councils interpret this very narrowly. They still need to consider material planning considerations and other human rights.

GPDO and Prior Approval does not absolve the council of their other legal obligations and duties of care, and so creates a conflict for them.

Why are SSSI afforded special status? Doesn’t this reveal an admission of the radiation hazard with regard to protected species and ecosystems. There should be nowhere that is not protected.

If the government continues down this course, is vital that there be passive spaces provided for children and vulnerable groups. Not to do so would be a contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998, The Disabilities Discrimination Act 2018, and the Equalities Act 2010. Comparative legislation in Europe includes a ban on cell (mobile phone) towers near to nurseries, schools, hospitals, play areas and other places where children and vulnerable groups spend the majority of their time. Please ensure this also happens in the UK.


Question 7.


The Government has considered whether further measures are needed to support deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage.


We are considering whether permitting monopoles up to 15 metres in height outside of Article 2(3) land and land on or within sites of special scientific interest without the need for prior approval would support the Government’s ambitions for 5G deployment.


We would welcome your views on this proposal. We particularly welcome comments on the restrictions, limitations and conditions that would be required to ensure this permitted development right would only apply to monopoles, and to mitigate visual impacts.


Suggested response:


I do not consent to this proposal.

'Without prior approval' essentially means the Telecommunications Industry would be granted a higher standing legally than the people that the government and corporations are supposed to serve. This is clearly being driven by corporate greed.

All telecommunications developments must be strictly considered to see whether the technology is harmful, and whether there is anyone that is willing to be held to account for its installation.

The ‘carbon and pollution footprint’ arising from use of resources and the power needed to service the entire infrastructure must be considered under sustainability criteria. There are a wealth of studies highlighting the conflict with sustainability goals.


The government has not considered safer alternatives and is racing ahead despite ever louder warnings from the scientific community and doctors; see question 1. See evidence included in the answer to Question 12.


SECTION: Safeguarding


Question 8.


The Government wishes to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to mitigate the impact of development from the proposals on safeguarded areas. To achieve this, we are proposing to amend the General Permitted Development Order for all developments relating to masts within official safeguarded areas related to Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas.


8A) Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to amend the General Permitted Development Order to include a prior notification procedure relating to safeguarded areas, and to require prior approval for proposed mast developments in proximity to a defence asset?


Yes

No


Suggested response: SELECT YES


8B) We would welcome your views on proposed the prior notification procedure and prior approval requirement.


Suggested response:


There is not enough detail to provide an informed answer to this question.

But again, proper safety testing, public accountability and indemnity insurance must all be in place.

Interesting that putting masts near to military assets pose a threat.


Safeguarding, as mentioned MUST include safeguarding children and vulnerable groups. Not to do this is a contravention of human rights and a contravention of the rights of the child.


See comparative law with other states in evidence in Question 12.


SECTION: Small Cell Systems


Question 9.


Question 9. The Government wishes to update the definition of small cell systems in the General Permitted Development Order. This is to ensure that there is no uncertainty about the types of technology that fall within the definition.


9A) Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to amend the definition of ‘small cell systems’ in the General Permitted Development Order?


Yes

No


Suggested response: SELECT NO


9B) We would welcome your views on this proposal.


Suggested response (paste all the following into the box for 9B):


9 A:


Amend what definition? To make sure they are guaranteed to be EXCLUDED from all prior approval?

Small cells are still creating and enhancing electrosmog and should not be exempt from approvals. Any change needs to be risk assessed. Placement and extent MUST be independently overseen and regulated. Whilst we are ‘flying blind’ in terms of safety then a precautionary halt to the rollout must be enforced.

Please provide your proposed definition of all small cell technology.


9 B:


In principle more clarity is essential.

However, if this is being used to allow more small cell systems to bypass existing legislation, then this is unacceptable.


SECTION: Implementation


Question 10.


We welcome comments on what more, if anything, the Government should do to ensure successful implementation of the proposed planning reforms to support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage.


Suggested response


This is a very one-sided question - why don't you consider the harm that 4G/5G expansion will cause? This is always ignored by the Government. The advisory bodies who certify the safety are not independent and are unaccountable.

A Risk Assessment should be a prerequisite - and one based on the biological effects that EMFs or pulsed radio frequency radiation can cause.

The ‘carbon and pollution footprint’ arising from use of resources and the power needed to service the entire infrastructure must be considered under sustainability criteria. There are a wealth of studies highlighting the conflict with sustainability goals - why is there no mention of this?

The Government should consider whether the public want 5G. This is not consumer led. The problem is that the Government is being driven by corporate profits.


Consider and manage the roll out of safer alternatives to support all life.


SECTION: Public sector equality duty


Question 11.


The proposals outlined in this technical consultation build upon the principles that the Government has established to enable the deployment of 5G and extending mobile coverage, and have been considered under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.


Considering the technical detail of the proposals, we would welcome views on the potential impact of the matters raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?


Suggested response


This raises serious questions with regard to discriminating, harassing and victimising those who are electro-hyper-sensitive (EHS). The term 'microwave sickness' is well known to the military and has been known about for 70 years. Many more people will become EHS in the years to come with the increasing proliferation of masts and antenna.

There is now a scientific and medical definition of EHS. If the radiation is everywhere and unavoidable then how are susceptible people protected?

You must consider people with metal implants and those who have a medical diagnosis of ICD10 W90 and are suffering symptoms of exposure to non-ionising radiation. They are ‘disabled’, and further exposure to radiofrequency radiation endangers their health in a way not safeguarded by the ICNIRP guidelines. Under s.149 of the Disabilities Equality Act 2010. they would be unfairly discriminated against should the consultation proposals be implemented.

Age and pregnancy are also included in the Protected Characteristics of the Equality Act – children and babies in utero have been shown to be particularly at risk from the harmful to health effects from RF radiation. And more so from the biological, non-thermal effects of 5G.

The UK Government does not recognise electrosensitivity or ES (also called Electro-hypersensitivity or EHS). In Sweden Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is an officially fully recognised functional impairment (i.e it is not regarded as a disease). Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000-290,000 Swedish men and women – out of a population of 9,000,000 – report a variety of symptoms when being in contact with electromagnetic field sources. To this, one should also add all the current issues regarding the bigger picture: the health effects of electromagnetic fields on the general population. This needs to be addressed in the UK, otherwise a section of the population is ignored and sidelined under the Equalities Act.


SECTION: Assessment of impact


Question 12.


We welcome any further evidence specifically on the regulatory impacts of the proposed changes to planning regulations set out in this technical consultation


Suggested response


Accountability:

It must be made far, far clearer - in the legislation in particular - who is accountable for any potential harm, loss or injury caused by widespread installation and use of the technology. It is not acceptable that those mandating it (Telecoms and the Government) pass the liability down to local authorities (who believe that the safety test certificates provided by ICNIRP demonstrate a reasonable safety level) and the public, who find that no-one is accountable.

Reporting:

Members of the public have no easy path or recourse should they start to suffer harm or fear harm or need to report harm from exposure to pulsed microwave radiation, at any intensity.

Human Rights:

If masts and small cells are in effect ‘mandated’ then this would conflict with our rights under [the European Court of Human Rights] ECHR Article 6 to a determination of claims relating to health, and detrimental effects on the value of land and property resulting from Telco installations.

Councils should be given more power to receive and assess applications, not less.

The impacts will be of a health nature, and also will impact on the environment and wildlife. We already find this happening. Some studies include:

The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884


Increased Blood-Brain Barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073/


Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences, available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583


National Toxicology report 2018: Peer Review of the Draft NTP Technical Reports on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation worldwide policies on cell phones, wireless etc, https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241473738_The_Influence_of_Being_Physically_Near_to_a_Cell_Phone_Transmission_Mast_on_the_Incidence_of_Cancer


Legal cases in the news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4531247.stm

https://www.globalresearch.ca/court-appeal-turin-confirms-link-between-head-tumour-mobile-phone-use/5701050


SECTION: Supporting Evidence and Confidentiality


Confidentiality


Suggested response: Tick 'I would like my response to be treated as confidential'


Any additional evidence


Suggested response: No need to attach anything