Telephone boxes

Object to 5G Small Cells Plan for Cheltenham High Street

BT plan to replace traditional phone boxes with 5G small cell containing ‘Street Hubs’

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/what-going-happen-phone-boxes-6181887

Please send your objections to: planning@cheltenham.gov.uk only one email is needed containing all of the below reference numbers
22/00326/FUL – 23 Pittville Street
22/00326/ADV
22/00330/FUL  – Sew M-Design Sewing Studio 253 Gloucester Road
22/00330/ADV
22/00328/FUL – 195 High Street
22/00328/ADV
22/00322/FUL – 159 High Street 
22/00322/ADV
22/00324/FUL – SOHO Coffee Co Unit B The Brewery Quarter High Street
22/00324/ADV
and your name and address. If you aren’t a Cheltenham resident then just mention that you visit the Town centre regularly.

It’s a good idea to include reference to the illuminated advertisements on the units having potential to spoil the character of the area, as well as your own concerns about 5G itself.

Expiry date: 31 March 2022

Sample Objection

I am writing to object to the proposed BT Street Hub scheme, Planning References:
22/00326/FUL& 22/00326/ADV, 22/00330/FUL & 22/00330/ADV, 22/00328/FUL & 22/00328/ADV, 22/00322/FUL & 22/00322/ADV, 22/00324/FUL & 22/00324/ADV

I’m concerned that the installation of three of these units in a Conservation area will spoil the character of the area, due to the nature of the proposed illuminated advertising. The fourth installation in the Promenade, whilst not a Conservation area has a very evident Regency town aesthetic which again I believe would be compromised by this installation.

I’m also concerned about the removal of the current systems, as they are needed for use by Electrosensitive individuals who are unable to use Mobile Phones. The inclusion of 5G Small Cells in these replacement units makes them entirely unsuitable for such individuals, therefore rendering the units largely redundant as a large percentage of those who don’t own a Mobile Phone don’t do so because of the health effects, amongst other reasons.

I also object to the overall plan for 5G technology: facial recognition, autonomous drones, driverless cars and the proliferation of the internet of things – this plan if it comes to fruition will leave us with an Artificial Intelligence dominated world.

Since the announcement of this plan a few years ago there has been increased scrutiny of the safety of wireless devices and infrastructure, with ever increasing doubt about that safety for humans, wildlife and the natural world more generally.
There is a growing body of evidence of health and environmental harm inflicted by Polarised, Pulsed, and Modulated Radio Frequency Radiation. In light of this I feel that it’s particularly inappropriate to allow further proliferation of this technology at this time. It appears that the ICNIRP standards are way out of date and not suitable to assess the current situation.

5G will incorporate some of the current frequencies and will start to move into the millimetre wave spectrum, which is even more of an unknown than the current frequency ranges, but early indications are that they could be of particular concern regarding the well being of Bees.

I believe that the burden of proof should fall on the industry to prove that this technology is safe before deployment. I also understand that the NPPF is advisory, not Legislation or Law. So it is my contention that the council can choose to uphold your duty of care if you so wish.

I ask the council to draw a line in the sand on this, with either a precautionary approach or an investigation into the polluting effects of the technologies.

I also ask the council to be mindful that allowing a tip toe towards an Artificial Intelligence dominated environment, is surely something that would need to be transparently part of the Local Plan, and therefore would require widespread public consultation.