Example 4

Princess Elizabeth Way , application number 21/00966

I am writing to object to the above planning application on the grounds that I regularly visit nearby properties for my work.

My objection is as follows:
1) This proposed monopole installation will be a monstrous infrastructure development, viewable from a long way off, that is both unsightly and sinister.
2) There doesn’t seem to be need for this imposition – can the Telecoms company provide evidence that demonstrates need?
3) Can the telecoms company provide evidence to demonstrate that this type of electronic communications infrastructure is not expected to cause significant and permanent interference with the human body, electrical equipment such as pace makers, stents, brain synapses or volted-gated calcium channels? If so, I would like to see this evidence.
4) Has the Telecoms company consulted with local residents particularly parents of children at the nearby primary school, which I believe is only 300m from the proposed installation? I understand that this must be done as part of the legal process. Again, please provide evidence that this has been undertaken. Evidence under General Permitted Development Order (NPPF 2019 para 115): ‘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’. Evidence should include (para 115a): ‘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.’
5) This technology has no insurance and indeed is uninsurable. What is the council’s policy regarding allowing uninsured infrastructure to be erected within its planning boundary?
6) The burden of proof is on the Telecoms industry to prove this technological development is safe for children before deployment, particularly as children and young people are likely to be the main consumers. I would like to see that proof.
7) There is a large body of evidence from national and international scientists and doctors that identifies serious concerns regarding the safety of this technology on humans, animals, insects, (particularly on bees & other pollinators) as well as plants and trees. Can the council confirm that ALL evidence (both for and against) has been reviewed to inform permitted development of this type and if not, explain why the ‘precautionary principle’ has not been applied until this has been undertaken? I understand that the NPPF is advisory, not Legislation or Law.

%d bloggers like this: