“The 5G network is closely connected with the Smart City agenda and will enable centralized control of lots of different street infrastructure owned or managed by councils, such as street-lights, water meters and bus stops. …Without the more basic technology solutions such as 5G, smart-region solutions and value-added outcomes will struggle to be brought to fruition. … It will support a better environment for today and tomorrow by reducing the need to travel and in turn minimise carbon emissions”Clarke Telecom in a recent planning application
This is a very revealing statement, first time seen so publicly. Are they having to bring this in to offset the progress being made resisting their SMART plans or because they know they are facing growing resistance generally and particularly from 5G mast campaigners?
“5G antennas have a different ICNIRP profile than the previous generations of radio technology and as such they need a greater clearance from existing development.”Clarke Telecom
What do they mean by ‘profile’ – Exclusion zone perhaps, because the phased array increases the distance that a certain power will be received (further compared to 4G isotropic beams) ?
Here is a draft letter that could be used to keep probing with your local council:
The LPAs can be directly challenged on the Auditory Effect – ACT NOW – SEND THIS EMAIL
Contains Auditory Effect and up to date references on the progression of recognition of EHS
The campaign is still putting pressure on Case Officers:
a) to follow the rules since GPDO changes (permitted development rules update), making sure they use Prior Approval in the correct way
b) when they fail to notify and consult about mast applications (failure to follow due process). Check if neighbours and schools near a proposed site HAVE been notified. NPPF 117a.
c) where telcos fail to justify the need, NPPF 115, (often they justify a new 5G mast by showing none in the area, whereas the existing 3-4G masts provide the Telco service perfectly well and are not shown). Make sure they have explored other sites as well (NPPF 117c)
d) to scrutinise where some Telco applications are sloppy and are failing to provide the ICNIRP compliance certificates and exclusion zones. Check the site location diagram to make sure it tallies up with the actual address.
e) pull them up on any requests that we have made of the council, even when the masts are approved
f) to take into account environmental effects (energy drain, environmental footprint, impact on insects etc)
AND we are continuing to pressure re health and the lack of technical specifications provided with the plans about the 5G beam forming and power drop off. (NPPF 117b)
Even though they keep ignoring health as not being a valid ‘material concern’ we need to keep adding the health impact argument in all objections. PHE confirmed in 2019 that health IS a factor. Furthermore, the evidence accrued since the latest 2007 case law is now exceptional – which triggers the need to consider it above and beyond one policy (NPPF 118) and as part of wider planning law issues.**
Imminent legal challenge
There is an EXCITING new imminent challenge to central governments depts being crafted by one dogged campaigner re the incomplete EECC transposition; the failure to make public health imperative and operate the health protection measures and failure to maintain our individual rights of objectors.
Interpretation of how the public health protection measures that make Recital 110 and Article 45.2(h) of the EECC relevant re: LPA obligations, can be pursued under the terms of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018.
As a campaign as a whole we are in a strong position because
The government know 5G mmWave frequencies have not been tested for safety, it is expensive if not impossible to measure. Evidence being that Ofcom are still using 1998 guidelines in their 2023 site surveys, and they admit that in the guidance to the CEMFAW legislation:
“5.2 ELVs are the legal limitations on the exposure of workers to EMFs, and primarily relate to the levels of exposure to EMFs within the body. These are often impossible or difficult and expensive to measure directly. For this reason a separate set of values, known as ALs, has been produced, which can be measured more easily”
Another campaign strength is we know how they are addressing their wireless policy.
We know their policy where they have identified the downsides of a fully digitised society.
“5G officially arrived in the UK in 2019, and has utilised existing 4G infrastructure, but coverage is not yet widespread. 5G will deliver higher peak data speeds, ultra-low latency (delays in data transfer) and massive network capacity, but ‘true’ 5G requires upgraded infrastructure to current 4G networks.”
“Scenario D: Seamless Citizen – Citizens and industry embrace full digitisation and demand facilitates the rollout of advanced network infrastructure throughout the UK. This new quality and ubiquity of connectivity unlocks opportunities for prosperity but is demanding of people’s data, energy and mental health.”
There is much we can make of this:
FOI: What do they mean by ‘True 5G’ ?
FOI: What are the source materials which support the statement that “ubiquity of connectivity is demanding of people’s data, energy and mental health”.
TOP PRIORITY is to emphasise the downsides the government have identified in their wireless policy document ie cost to your ENERGY and MENTAL HEALTH.
Consider the reality of a ‘smart fully digitised society’ to raise awareness and appeal to potential objectors ….
Imagine how stressful life would be …
… if you have an electric car, trapped in a zone you have to pay to get out of, or being restricted by remote control
…your spending controlled by your vaccination status
…your movements controlled by your purchasing choices
…your location constantly monitored by facial recognition cameras on every street corner
…you are drenched in wireless radiation which causes all sorts of health conditions as your body tries to adjust to the oxidative stress which the government fully recognises the radiation causes
…the ongoing mental stress of dealing with being in queues on the phone, and talking to recorded voices rather than anyone personally
…the stress of even less contact when trying to access medical services and of being treated medically at a distance, or left with only self checkout in shops
…the stress of traffic being controlled on smart motorways
…the stress of driverless cars
…the stress of unpredictability of how hacked systems and system failures can randomly interrupt your life
…the stress of AI creating a world where reality and truth are all but impossible to judge ….
**The 2007 Case Law used in the IOW 5G case pre-dates the EECC co-created by the UK government specifically for the roll out of 5G. There are measures within the EECC intended to make public health imperative.
The IOW ruling that ICNIRP policy need only be set aside to secure public health protection in exceptional circumstances could have been appealed, but the barrister felt a result would only affect an individual mast and the issues of UK central government resourcing the LPAs to perform risk reconciliation and a determination of what constitutes an “exceptional circumstance” may not be resolved in the planning court. It is the SoSfH who is responsible for the enactment of the public health protections in the EECC, and under Article 6.5 has the obligation to resource the LPAS to perform their function to reconcile the health and environmental risks. The SOSFH is now being challenged for failing to do so.