MAST OBJECTION:

How to make your health and environmental concerns count when objecting to a mast.

Up until now Councils have viewed objections made on grounds of APPEARANCE and SITING in a limited way, but we argue that adverse health and environmental effects must be addressed and this siting issue is critical, even under Prior Approval.

RFR non-thermal effects are polluting, or potentially polluting, and credible evidence of this can be submitted to support the position that the mast application will result in an “unacceptable and incompatible use” of the land/site. 

The Council may quote para 118 of the NPPF and claim they cannot set health safeguards other than ICNIRP, but this conflicts with para 185. One policy is not Law. Conflicting policies must be resolved by taking into account all information to determine a material planning consideration.

The steps below are designed to support a campaign group to gain recognition of health as a siting issue, and achieve a mast rejection on this basis.  Other siting issues should be raised, particularly if they overlap with health concerns.

An application in Brighton was quashed upon application for Judicial Review. All 3 grounds were conceded including failure to adequately address public health.

Step 1

Option 1

Write a single paragraph in the Comments box of the Application: such as one of these

“This is a siting issue – it is ‘incompatible and unacceptable use’ of land and that is a material planning consideration. There is evidence of a pollutant involved causing adverse health effects which need to be evaluated under sentence 1,  section 185 of the NPPF, and the Planning department  has to take account of that evidence.  The polluting effects have to be investigated by competent persons. That competence falls under the environmental health/director public health remit. The evidence shows this application is unsustainable under the NPPF social sustainability objective – there is no net benefit – the application should be refused.”

“There is faulty logic with increasing EMF’s with 5G when all the facts show there is a huge risk to our health and the environment. Adding infrastructure, be it masts, small cells and satellites to support the internet of things consumes enormous amounts of energy and has important security and surveillance consequences. There is a legal case underway being led by eminent barrister Michael Mansfield (https://actionagainst5g.org/) which is challenging the government’s lack of proper risk assessment as well as their failure to protect public health, particularly children.”

I object to this mast as it is overbearing and unfitting to the surrounding area. There is evidence in the Kostoff 2020 paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X) and https://ehtrust.org/science/ that the emissions from masts are a pollutant which cause adverse health effects, beyond the effects which are recognised in the UK adopted ICNIRP guidelines. Despite the policy to only consider ICNIRP under NPPF para 118, it is important to make an evidence-based determination of the material planning consideration ‘incompatible and unacceptable use’ of land under NPPF para 185. The 2018 EECC code transposed into Law in Dec 202O also clearly states that public health is an imperative and competent authorities should be reconciling the risks. In view of the mounting evidence of harm and any uncertainty, please apply precaution and refuse this mast.”

“I am a visitor to the area and someone who cares about the wellbeing of the residents and children in nearby schools. I object to this proposal, it is out of proportion to the surrounding area. It is unsightly and overbearing. I object to people being subject to vast amounts of radiation, it is known that radiation exposure levels within 500m of a mast increases the risk of neurological symptoms, headaches and loss of memory and learning capabilities, especially in children. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337624982_Limiting_liability_with_positioning_to_minimize_negative_health_effects_of_cellular_phone_towers)”

“Regarding Policy 118: Planning grounds may be supported by the LPA taking into account NPPF paragraphs 119, and the first sentence of NPPF paragraph 185, in respect of argument and evidence presented by the public. By doing so, the LPA would be fulfilling its statutory obligations without contravening NPPF paragraph 118.”

“I am writing to urge you to reject this application.  I  hope you will consider the application responsibly. It is easy to wave it through with the underlying belief that it’s good for business and you can’t ‘stop progress’. However, the world is changing, and your overriding concern must be for the welfare of local people and the natural world in which we flourish.
The world is in a more dangerous state now than at any time since the Second World War.  The dangers have been allowed to grow because of a blind belief in technological progress, economic growth and profit above all. We need to think again and caution is the best policy. It’s time to push back against the expectation that because something is new it will be good for local people and will be welcomed by them.
We are far more questioning than you may suppose and we seriously question the real benefit of more telecoms, more data and more virtualisation. We see that these technological toys divide us from the world we live in, create anxiety and hopelessness, lock us into our screens and separate us from each other.  It’s time to be courageous and to start saying NO to this application and others of its kind.”

Option 2

Email a longer Objection Letter to the council / case officer, and link YOUR health concerns with the relevant science.

Update all red text in the Template Objection Letter with the details relevant to your mast application. There is a section after the science table pertaining to other siting issues, please tailor this to make it relevant to your application. 

To select a few [more] scientific references in your submission please Click on the buttons, or use the List attached, below which relate most to your health and environmental concerns at the application site.

You don’t have to select references from each section. Just go to the sections that most interest you and pick one or two from each to back up your objections. (Please DON’T copy and paste the whole table or document into your objection)

Option 3

Contact the Head of Planning, or local authority CEO to ask some specific questions regarding the viability and lawfulness of 4/5G densification. Please contact us for more info.

Step 2

Create & distribute flyers containing information about health concerns being a “siting” issue.

Change yellow highlighted areas in the Template (below) to add in location, planning application number. Print and distribute.                                                                    

SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES FOR USE IN OBJECTIONS

Note: it is helpful (but not essential) if you can make your objection as relevant to the local population or area as possible.

Pick relevant studies using the Buttons below, or the document versions attached (List is easier to copy from).

For example, you could say something like  “I live near the proposed masts and already have poor health or x health condition. The science shows that RFR from masts can cause or contribute to various health issues/this health condition, so I’m worried that my health will deteriorate even more.”  Then copy and paste some of the scientific references provided on masts, or RFR in general, that cause or exacerbate these health issues.

If you have children for example, you could say that you are concerned about your children’s health, and copy and paste some of the scientific references from the ‘Mast Proximity Consequences Especially for Children’ and ‘Children and RFR’ sections. Likewise, if you’re concerned about effects on ecology (bearing in mind nearby parks, gardens or coastal wildlife, especially birds) you could state this and copy and paste some of the scientific references from the ‘Ecology and RFR’ section.