«Latest  ‹Forward   News item: 7920  Back›  Oldest» 

BREAKING! Fishersgate mast in Brighton, quashed at Judicial Review
United Kingdom Created: 7 Nov 2021
Finally, we now have the recognition that Local Planning Authorities need to address the health impacts of 5G mast proposals further, rather than blindly accepting an ICNIRP certificate. Thank you to all those of you who donated, without your donations this could not have happened.

Siting and Appearance, are still ‘material planning considerations’ under Prior Approval. As such, NPPF policy para 118 must still be treated, along with other policies, by weighing evidence of ‘compatible and incompatible use’. A self declared ICNIRP certificate is just one factor, and not sufficient on its own. This may not be the technical reason for the judgement, but is an important area to keep pressing. Para 185 contradicts 118. Councils COULD be helping us, there are enough considerations to refuse masts as pollutants.

Brighton Council conceded on all 3 grounds in the Judicial Review Challenge including:

“the Council failed to address the health impacts of this particular proposal and to obtain adequate evidence of the assessment of the proximity to the school and the amended proposal”

The High Court of Justice issued the Consent Order today and Brighton Council have to pay the costs. A massive thank you goes to Karen Churchill, Carol Springay and her partner Spencer who put a lot of time and effort into this along with Carole Ward and Councillor Les Hamilton.

You will notice the ground says “for this particular proposal”. The mast was 27m from a school and no exclusion zones were provided (normally up to 50m). If you have an equivalent situation or a mast very close to homes with children then the parallel with the case could be argued tightly. But you could also use the precedent to argue that health affects within 500m should be addressed.

Keep it simple with just one or 2 references. The planners and councillors do say they are not scientists and can be overwhelmed by “science”. The latest Spanish paper (LOPEZ et al 2021) could work well. also the JD Pearce paper:

What is the radiation before 5G? A correlation study between measurements in situ and in real time and epidemiological indicators in Vallecas, Madrid

Lopez https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33434609/ shows headaches and sleep disturbances.

Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers

JD PEARCE paper states “There is a large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects, including both i) neuropsychiatric complaints such as headache, concentration difficulties, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, fatigue and sleep disturbance, and ii) increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337624982_Limiting_liability_with_positioning_to_minimize_negative_health_effects_of_cellular_phone_towers

Councils need to know that they could face a Judicial Review if they don’t address the information and evidence you present them. Keep asking them where the exclusion zones fall and don’t accept any decision where you suspect there is a residence within the zone. If health impacts need to be assessed by a school then by deduction one could argue that equally children need to be protected at home and information you present about health impacts should be addressed. If there are homes very close to the mast which house children, you could point this out and then link to the Brighton precedent. (ref planning app no. BH2021/016)

Link to ruling, here: https://rfinfo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Consent-Order-02.11.21.pdf
Click here to view the source article.
Source: RF INFO, 04 Nov 2021

«Latest  ‹Forward   News item: 7920  Back›  Oldest»