Picking apart the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) from 2012 and the latest in 2019 was an interesting task, as it shows some interesting aspects where the priority has switched from protecting the Public to protecting the interests of the 5G roll out strategy. All is not lost though. I believe that there are critical areas we can still fight any mast going up especially existing and new ones around schools and colleges. These areas are:

1. Section 113.

1a. They have to prove that section 113 is being kept to, which is to keep “The number of radio and electronic communications masts, and the sites for such installations, should be kept to a minimum consistent with the needs of consumers, the efficient operation of the network and providing reasonable capacity for future expansion.” This means that the burden of proof is on them to prove YOU the ‘consumers’ want and need the extra mast in your area. If you show them there is no demand, then they HAVE NO RIGHT OF THIS DIRECTIVE TO ERECT OR EVEN KEEP UP AN EXISTING MAST NEAR YOUR SCHOOLS AND HOMES. This is the ONLY piece of pseudo-Legislation they have, as the Government knows 100% that Legislation and ancient Law resides over the Land. The protection we ALL have a Right to from our forefathers dying to keep our Freedom.

1b. They also have to prove that they have surveyed the area for the “Use of existing masts, buildings and other structures for new electronic communications capability (including wireless).”

1c. This is an important part – If your community thinks the proposed masts look awful, then says so, as the 113 states: “equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.”

2. Section 114.

2a. In 114 local planning authorities can impose a ban on “new electronic communications development in certain areas”, this is called “Article 4” and Councils can insist “on minimum distances between new electronic communications development and existing development.” Just because NPPF says Councils “should not” do this, it doesn’t mean you cannot activate your Community to make the Council do this! Article 4 can be invoked if your community is a site of heritage and the community feels it needs to be protected. This could be an angle for us to being using on a large scale, especially if you’re in a rural or historical area, this will be much easier to accomplish.

2b. The Telecoms company has to prove and provide “evidence to demonstrate that electronic communications infrastructure is not expected to cause significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment, air traffic services or instrumentation operated in the national interest.” So ask them this, will it affect your existing equipment? MY belief is that it actually does affect my Human Body equipment as it operates from tiny electrical charges and even a Smart Meter being on can affect your blood cells, see here:

3. Section 115.

3a. This part is crucial for those of you making sure that existing mobile phone masts are taken down and new ones are not put up near schools and colleges. “An approval under the General Permitted Development Order must be made and there should be supporting evidence.” Therefore, demand to see the outcomes of consultations the Telecoms company and Councils have had with people who have an interest, this will include the school, the parent’s committee and interested parents themselves. If these haven’t been done yet, they must be done as part of the legal process. Any failure would mean that the mast will be or has been illegally erected.

MORE INFO HERE  Smart Meter lawsuit filed in Illinois

3b. If you don’t know, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are the gatekeepers for ‘safe levels’ of exposure to radiation (whatever that means). In 115 it states: “For an addition to an existing mast or base station, a statement that self-certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection.” There are three points to challenge here:

The ICNIRP’s Chairman, states in 2019, “I regret that I was not accurate enough in providing information to ‘The Telegraph’.” In short, he created FAKE NEWS that massively reduced fears around the safety of 5G technologies including Massive MIMO for 4G LTE. This is a the official body who says it’s fine for Telecoms companies to regulate themselves by using theoretical radiation levels to deem if it’s safe to put a mast up outside schools and homes.

Challenge them to rebut this new major study:

“Children’s health and well-being is under significant threat from everyday digital technologies, as the past 15 years have seen the proliferation of microwave Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) devices in the home, school and society. The safety standards for such devices—smartphones, tablets etc.—were based on the proven thermal or heating effects of microwave devices in adults, not children.”

Challenge them to rebut over 150 studies found here:

99 Problems & 5G is 1: Actually Over 150 Studies into Dangerous Radio Frequency

Then point out that ICNIRP cannot stand behind their own studies, their website’s legal disclaimer is as follows:

“ICNIRP e.V. undertakes all reasonable measures to ensure the reliability of information presented on the website, but does not guarantee the correctness, reliability, or completeness of the information and views published. The content of our website is provided to you for information only. We do not assume any responsibility for any damage, including direct or indirect loss suffered by users or third parties in connection with the use of our website and/or the information it contains, including for the use or the interpretation of any technical data, recommendations, or specifications available on our website.”

4. Section 116.

4a. DO NOT under any circumstances let the Council fob you off with this line: “Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only.” The above ways to challenge the Council and Telecoms companies are above and the Council do have powers in Article 4 to ban any erection they wish if it’s not in the interests of the environment or the Public. Remember, this framework is a Directive, it is not Legislation or Law – This is why the words ‘should not’ are used and ‘cannot’ is not used. Why? Because of what the Chairman of ICNIRP states:

“Mobile telecommunication systems are brought on the market with the assumption, based on available knowledge at the time of introduction, that they are safe. If they have not been tested specifically, this inference is made from general knowledge of effects of exposure to EMF… I think it is not correct if one considers the monitoring of possible health effects resulting from exposure to RF EMF from mobile telecommunication systems as a human health experiment. It is not an experiment, since it was never the intention to expose people and see what happens. The exposure is a by-product of the system, which, as I explained, was considered to be safe at the time of introduction, for which the monitoring of any effects is a useful (and indeed necessary) thing to do.”

Apply this quote to rebut that the Council cannot do anything about mobile phone masts especially 5G in your area. As it CLEARLY STATES that the very body that hands over control of radiation levels from EXPERIMENTAL TECHNOLOGY that is going up near schools and homes is their best guess. Simply, they don’t what the effects will be over the longterm, but they will be conducting studies into what happens in your community. What does this say to you? At this point in your letter, make it clear that the Council and Government are responsible for what goes up around us all. If they are putting up experimental technologies that produce radiation and in the future it turns out that Cancer rates in our children go up, and we have proof that it does, then hold your Council and the Telecoms company to account for your safety. See what they say. Here’s a study that will shudder your heart as a parent:

MORE INFO HERE  Inflammatory Disease Epidemic: The Convergence Point of EMF, GMOs, and Vaccines.

“Childhood (and other) cancer clusters have been found after only one year of base stations being in operation, such as the widely publicized cluster in Valladolid, Spain (2000/2001) where 10 children in the vicinity of antennae developed different cancers within one year. Ambient power flux readings ranged from 0.66V/m to 3.96V/m inside the school attended by three of the children concerned, to 8.4 V/m the roof of the school. The Leukemia rate in this particular neighbourhood had risen from the Spanish average of 4 in 100000 to 1 in 100. Although anecdotal, this is a stark warning of what we may face if Vodaphone’s proposal is accepted.”

WiredChild – UK Charity

Fight this in your community. Please email Smombie Gate for any help.

Here’s an example letter, one that has already been used to fight a mast going up near a school:

This has been going on for two years now. Why? Because Vodafone know that it’s risky setting up a 15m monopole that will be emitting RF radiation next to a school. I take on board that the monopole might be within ICNIRP guidelines, but I’d like to point out to you that INCIRP cannot stand behind their own studies, their website’s legal disclaimer is as follows:

“ICNIRP e.V. undertakes all reasonable measures to ensure the reliability of information presented on the website, but does not guarantee the correctness, reliability, or completeness of the information and views published. The content of our website is provided to you for information only. We do not assume any responsibility for any damage, including direct or indirect loss suffered by users or third parties in connection with the use of our website and/or the information it contains, including for the use or the interpretation of any technical data, recommendations, or specifications available on our website.”

This is scary as a parent because I’ve read evidence that children are getting Cancer in the USA and all over the World because there are mobile phone masts near their schools. Here’s just one example of many:

“Childhood (and other) cancer clusters have been found after only one year of base stations being in operation, such as the widely publicized cluster in Valladolid, Spain (2000/2001) where 10 children in the vicinity of antennae developed different cancers within one year. Ambient power flux readings ranged from 0.66V/m to 3.96V/m inside the school attended by three of the children concerned, to 8.4 V/m the roof of the school. The Leukemia rate in this particular neighbourhood had risen from the Spanish average of 4 in 100000 to 1 in 100. Although anecdotal, this is a stark warning of what we may face if Vodaphone’s proposal is accepted.”
WiredChild – UK Charity

I also have researched and have found hundreds of scientific studies detailing the cumulative effect of even small doses of radiation that would be the typical levels of the proposed mast:

0.5 to 1.0 mW m2 – Headaches, concentration difficulties, restlessness, tremor, and sleep disruption associated with chronic exposure to mobile phone base stations.

Mobile Phone Base Stations – Effects on Wellbeing and Health, Kundi M and Hutter HP, Pathophysiology, 2009 Aug; 16(2-3):123-35.

5 to 10 mW m2 – At this level it decreases human sperm motility, increases sperm DNA fragmentation, and affects brain activity and cognitive functions.

Conrado Avendaño, et.al., American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Fertility and Sterility, volume 97, Number 1, January 2012, pp 39-45

Approaching 30 mW/m2 of RF changes in cardiac function, including altered heart rate, arrhythmia, and/or tachycardia were observed.

Magda Havas, Reviews on Environmental Health, Volume 28 (November 2013), Issue 2-3, Pages 75–84

I’ve also looked into the National Planning Policy Framework February 2019 and found Section 10 to be relevant to the case in question:

  1. Applications for electronic communications development (including applications for prior approval under the General Permitted Development Order) should be supported by the necessary evidence to justify the proposed development. This should include:
  2. a) the outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed near a school or college, or within a statutory safeguarding zone surrounding an aerodrome, technical site or military explosives storage area; and
  3. b) for an addition to an existing mast or base station, a statement that self-certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection.

The logical understanding of sub-section 115 is:

Where is the approval under the General Permitted Development Order? There should be supporting evidence. Therefore, I’d like to see the outcomes of consultations with people who have an interest, this will include the school, the parent’s committee and interested parents themselves. If these haven’t been done yet, they must be done as part of the legal process. Any failure would mean that the mast will be illegally erected.

My simple understanding of this whole matter is that mobile phone masts should be a mandatory consideration of the school my children attend, as it’s within your own guidelines to make sure children are safe. You should be working with the precautionary principle with children. For instance, you know the roads are dangerous and you have put up adequate fencing to safeguard the children when playing. This is visible harm but the mast is invisible harm and children being around a mast pumping out radiation all day no matter the level is simply not safe, as it’s not a natural environment for children or Humans. Adults are more resilient, but children have no protection from radiation at all.

Parents, communities and schools are waking up to the dangers of mobile phone masts and are taking action. I’ve attached a very in-depth PDF from Wired Child a charity that deals with this very thing. I suggest you study it and the contents of my email and let me know how you believe you should proceed. 

Please find the framework PDFs at the bottom of this article:

How 5G Has Dangerously Taken Over Planning Regulations In The UK