Last Wednesday, Michele reminded us of another reason why people see a mast being erected and still complain about poor signal. One of the most obvious reasons is that it depends on your supplier and whose mast/antennas it is. If it’s ‘three’ for example only around 10% of the local people can possibly benefit.
| EE | 30% |
| Virgin & O2 | 25% |
| Vodafone | 20% |
| Three | 10% |
| Others | 10% |
Even with EE, two-thirds will not benefit. This is something that should ALWAYS be mentioned in an objection. Most people just think “Oh, a new mast; better signal” they don’t think “Oh not for you”
This group is about stopping masts from being approved and erected. It’s important work, not just as it leaves holes in the plans of telecom companies but as it is also an opportunity for raising awareness in local communities as well as Councillors and Council staff.
We all need to be engaged in this, not just for those in our own town but for our friends and colleagues, relatives also, in others. Whilst masts (and other NIR transmitting devices) are still being applied – for any erected we are ALL affected.
When others help you let us all then help others by submitting objections.
I would like to propose that everyone on this group makes just one objection a week. Is that too much to ask? You won’t even have to leave your computer or tablet.
With a tutorial and using https://www.estherslist.org/ that makes it much easier and if you write yourself a general one that will apply everywhere it need not take a long time.
Which leads me to …
*****
We now have esterslist up and running so everyone can share their planning applications to increase the numbers of objections. What we now would like are people who are checking their Council website each week and can feed the applications they find onto the site. It is a great resource only if people use it.
We would like to know those people who are doing that in their own village, town, city or county so we can allocate others to the places not already being monitored.
Remember, or learn, that this is about education and raising awareness in communities and Councils – including planning case officers who have no special training in Telecoms planning.
*****
STROUD – S.24/1123/FUL (Refused Aug-2024)
There was some good news about an important roof-mast refusal in Stroud. Thanks the work put in by locals, especially our own Sophie Gale with some guidance from Steven Thomas also. It shows that dedicated action do3es matter. Sophie’s determination to get figures from telecom enabled the case officer to argue that the data for safety was not demonstrated. She also went door-to-door found people with pacemakers nearby and encouraged them to input objections. A clear example that the work pays off when you do it. Added to which Sophie’s knowledge is also increased.
You are encouraged to read the details and make use of this case where it enhances your objection.
from Judith:
This was a proposed upgrade mast on a roof top. Due to campaigners highlighting the recent Cheltenham Case (ICNIRP – metal implants etc) and questioning locals as to who actually had a metal implant (the LPA heard from 3 such residents; these are listed in the officer’s report), the LPA requested additional information regarding power output and exclusion zones. (The LPA was acting in accordance with paragraph 122 in requesting information on planning grounds). The applicant/agent refused to supply this info.
Although the refusal was based on heritage harm, the above info was documented at length in the officer’s report.
Refusal to disclose information raises questions as to why such data should be withheld and raises concerns as to the validity of the ICNIRP certificate issued, if key data used in determining safety is nor forthcoming.
In all applications, the ICNIRP certificate is very rarely accompanied by details of Exclusion Zones or power outputs. Why is such information not readily available on request from any LPA? This lack of transparency casts doubts on the validity of any ICNIRP certificate.
In the STROUD case, locals with metal implants were living / working in very close proximity to the proposed mast site and therefore would not be covered by ICNIRP (as stated in its guidelines).
*****
Nicki Shepherd
I know Nicki and she is part of the very active wider group in Kent. She specialises in helping people detox, especially from Heavy metals and she is equally knowledgeable related to NIR.
She has collated an excellent resource of websites, documentaries, and books which I am happy to share with everyone. She has said that you can share it further.
See the blog on Toxicity.
*****
with love and thanks, ian