What’s this about?

Below – dated 9th July 2024 – are transcripts of a voicemail and a telephone conversation between the Wirral Residents Association and a planning consultant who was involved in the provision of information around 5G mast applications to Wirral Council’s planning department over some years. The subject matter of this conversation is the 37 x bogus safety certificates (conformity statements) that still appear in plain sight on Wirral Council’s planning portal (and several more local councils’ planning portals nationally). Also mentioned, but never followed up, is a potentially even more serious and legally contentious issue around planning applications for masts within / near schools.

To protect ourselves and our correspondent, we have not identified the people speaking.

It appears the planning consultant’s work had been carried out on behalf of a company called United Living, based in Warrington.

Details of the ongoing Wirral Council investigation – still not made public by Wirral Council and also not made public by five local and national newspapers

At the Wirral Residents Association, given the circumstances, the impact / growth of these radiation emitting devices, the broader scientific consensus against them, and the potential danger to the safety of the Wirral public (320,000 residents), we believe it is hugely in the public interest to issue the following information. We are determined to do this right and we’ve taken the obvious precaution of not revealing the identity of both persons involved.

TRANSCRIPTS

Voicemail message left on 9th July at 13:10:00

Wirral Residents Assosciation – Hi, this is a message for xxxxxxxxxx. My surname is xxxxxxxxxx. I live on the Wirral. Your company – xxxxxxxxxx – does various business on the Wirral. You’re an agent for the telecom companies. We’re very concerned at the moment about five approvals that were granted last year, one of which through the Planning Inspectorate, all of which had bogus safety certificates from a company that was dissolved in 2015, all of which had dodgy ownership in that the company changed their name to Cignal Infrastructure. Yet you still continue to apply in the name of CK Hutchison Networks UK Limited. All of them had text changed from the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] which you are supposed to stick to, from… where it related to the clause about putting a mast NEAR a school and you changed it – I don’t know if it was you – but somebody changed it to WITHIN a school, meaning that you don’t have to do the consultations if the mast is not in the school. We’re just concerned about these five approvals. We’d like a telephone call back if that’s okay? It’s been recorded in a criminal complaint to the council, Merseyside Police, the Planning Inspectorate, and we’re awaiting the – there’s three other bodies as well – and we’re awaiting responses from these. Wirral Council are supposedly investigating the circumstances. Now, please give us a call back and tell us your side of it please. Thank you very much. Speak to you later.

---

Telephone conversation held on 9th July at 13:32:02

Wirral Residents Association: Hello?
Planning consultant: Oh, hi there, it’s xxxxxxxxxx here, just giving you a call back. I just saw a missed call.
WRA: Oh, right, okay, we left a message on your phone. We were just ringing you really because I represent a group of people and we live on the Wirral. And your company – xxxxxxxxxx – has been an agent for CK Hutchison for many masts on the Wirral.
Planning consultant: Oh, yeah.
WRA: And we’re quite concerned about a number of them in that they seem to have dodgy safety certificates.
Planning consultant: Oh, yeah. There’s an answer to that. If you send…so I suppose number one is: we’re just a planning consultancy and we did quite a few applications for a company called United Living who are based in Warrington. And they are basically the company that’s been doing the work. So they…we’ve just done the planning applications and actually that project is over. We finished work on that project [inaudible] for some time. The thing to do with the ICNIRP certificates; that was looked at legally by Three, and I have seen…and I’ve got correspondence that basically [inaudible].
WRA: Hello?
Connection breaks for 12 seconds
WRA: Hello, are you still there?
Planning consultant: …[inaudible] names on the certificate. I think that’s the [inaudible].
WRA: Okay.
Planning consultant: But you could… I’ve actually got the wording relating to it. And I’m allowed to give it out, so if you drop me an email, I’ll happily send that through to you ’cause that might be helpful. But the people that are actually… that I think you’re wanting to speak to are [inaudible], because they did all the work, basically.
WRA: Okay, ’cause there was a couple of other issues. It was not just the ICNIRP certificate, it was also the company ownership. It was the company that was changed name to Cignal Infrastructure. And then there was still applications in the name of the previous company. But there was another issue too. It was the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) guidance had been changed by somebody when it was relating to a mast near a school. It was saying that if a mast was near a school, it needed consultations. It didn’t say who it was with, but it did say consultations. But somebody – and we don’t know who it was – changed it to… It said near, and it was thought to mean two or three hundred yards from the school, but someone had changed it to within. So it basically was saying, unless the mast’s actually on the school premises, you don’t need to do any consultations. So we…
Planning consultant: I think there were…again, it’s in the past, but I think there were consultations with schools that were within…well, I’m not sure…I think it’s 100 metres?
WRA: Right.
Planning consultant: 200 metres of them, so that was carried out as part of the [inaudible] for every site.
WRA: But what we were trying to… what we found out was that somebody’s changed the government text. And all councils. And from what we can see, it’s all over the country. All councils are quoting the amended text, so they’re saying it’s within. Now, you know, it’s a tough word; fraud. But that’s fraud. ‘Cause someone’s changed government text with an intent to deceive. And so let me just show you…
Planning consultant: Well, I’m certainly not aware of that. I think that the schools thing is it’s a best practice thing that was put forward by the operators. I don’t think that there’s any governmental legislation relating to that. But… I’m driving at the moment. It’s difficult to answer.
WRA: Yeah.
Planning consultant: Just trying to be as helpful as possible, basically.
WRA: If I drop you an email address, would you be able to forward anything on those… because basically, we’re trying to take it further because we’re seeing these applications being approved and we’re watching these masts go up. And a lot of the masts are based on what we would call as members of the public, fraudulent grounds. No company owns that mast. So if something happens with that mast, who’s responsible? Well, as far as we can see, nobody. And so we’ve taken it up…
Planning consultant: Oh, no, no, they’re all owned. So they’re all…so let’s say it was…I mean, these ones are Three. They’re all owned by Three.
WRA: But I mean, the Three UK Limited, they were dissolved nine years ago, and the CK Hutchison Networks UK Limited, they finished on paper in November ’22, yet there’s still five approvals round by us in the name of a company that is not valid on paper. So let’s just say that mast falls. I mean, it’s not going to, but if it does on a car and kills someone, who’s that person’s family… who do they chase for compensation, then, if the ownership is tenuous?
Planning consultant: So again, you’re asking quite legal questions to a planning consultant. But I believe that it’s a company Cignal (something) Infrastructures, which again, is just another iteration of Three. So Three are the company that you might have a mobile phone contract with, and they’re still very, very live. And the mast itself, I think that the company name is Cignal… Oh, sorry, is that… that’s somebody else, is it? Hello?
WRA: Yeah. I’m just… there’s another lady with me, xxxxxxxxxx, because we’re acting as a group, and we’re very concerned about these masts going up, because like you say, Cignal Infrastructure may very well exist now and they may very well have replaced the company that applied for the mast, but on paper, that mast is owned by…
Planning consultant: …yeah, it’s a company. It’s a name change. The company’s the same, I believe. I believe.
WRA: In that case, why was the application made in the name of the company that doesn’t exist?
Planning consultant: Again, I don’t know of any… I’m driving at the moment with my family.
WRA: Yeah, and I understand that. I understand.
Planning consultant: I know you’ve got lots of questions, but what I’d say is, the… you’re going really down the food chain, to the bottom of the food chain, which is me. Which is a planning consultancy, basically. The people that you want to speak to are Three UK. And they’ve got Customer Relations. They’ve got Community Relations. They’ve got all of these people that can answer all of these questions. And if there is a legal issue, I don’t… personally, I’m very… I don’t believe there is, because we have been challenged on this before and we’ve taken legal advice and then I’ve seen Three’s legal advice. So I do… again, I’m the bottom of the food chain with it, so I’m not… I don’t quite [inaudible] …I don’t think there is anything. But the people you need to speak to are Three UK. And if you don’t want to speak to them, then the people you should be speaking to is United Living because we were just doing… they’re an acquisition design consultancy for our company. And they just source some planning applications to us, another company called Sinclair Dolby, another company called – what was it – there are about five different companies just in planning consultancy work for them. So we’re no longer working on that particular project. But they are. They’re still bulding the sites and things. So they’re very active, and they’re very local to you as well.
WRA: Did you say it was United Living?
Planning consultant: United Living. They own the company. They bought a company called GBC Great British Communications.
WRA: Ah, yeah. I’ve seen them. Great… They’re the ones who authorised the certificate.
Planning consultant: Yeah, that’s right. So they’re the actual construction company that got the whole contract to do the planning, the acquisition, the construction from Three. So they are a step down from Three, related to communications, but all they’ll do is they’ll just go with… they’ll refer it to Three, who will then hopefully get in touch with you.
WRA: Yeah, well, I mean, we’ll speak with anyone because we are extremely concerned about it. To the point where we’ve contacted the council and we’ve contacted the police and we’ve contacted the Planning Inspectorate. And we’ve contacted a number of agencies, informing them of all the specific details about what we’ve found. Which is… it’s extremely worrying, you know?
Planning consultant: Yeah, I have seen some of these things, but again, as I said… and we do get… because we do this work, we do get some not nice stuff, if I’m being perfectly honest. But I think, you know, the only advice I’d give is… I really try to take proper advice from people that, you know, that are very knowledgeable in the area. I take legal advice for all of that kind of thing if you are wanting to take it further, but speak to the right people, ’cause there’s no point speaking to someone like me.
WRA: Yeah.
Planning consultant: I’m not the person [voices overlap] …
WRA: No, I understand that, but we just found your details as the agent, that’s all.
Planning consultant: I completely understand, but what I’d do is I would definitely speak to the people you want to speak to which is Three, you know.
WRA: Yeah.
Planning consultant: It’s like Miller Homes building something next to you and they punted it out to someone and then someone was involved in a planning application, you know? So it would be Miller Homes you’d need to be speaking to.
WRA: Yeah, I get that. I mean, that’s putting it in the box that it’s a planning issue, and it is a planning issue, but also, for most people – and you’d probably find this the country wide, the concern is that radiation emitting devices are going up closer and closer to people, not only people’s homes; schools with little children in. And that’s why we’re apoplectic about it.
Planning consultant: Yeah. I completely understand, and that’s actually a governmental issue to do with the emissions, which again, that’s something else. But as I said, you’re on loudspeaker. I’m here with my family and my young children. So…
WRA: Yeah, don’t put them near a mast then.
Planning consultant: I… Yeah, I mean, I think they’re safe to be honest, but… otherwise I wouldn’t do the work. But yeah, if you do want to send me an email, I will do what I can to put you in touch with the right people.
WRA: Well, listen, first of all, we appreciate you ringing us back. I didn’t think you would to be honest with you, but thanks very much. If I text you an email address, would you be able to send us the things that you talked about earlier on?
Planning consultant: I will. If you email me, and my email address will be on the correspondence that you’ve got which has got my telephone number, then I’ll get back to you. That would be great.
WRA: Brilliant. Thanks very much for that, xxxxxxxxxx. Take it easy, yeah?
Planning consultant: Okay. Thank you. Take care, bye-bye.
WRA: Tata, bye.

---

Here’s a follow-up email with the sender and addressees removed, dated 17th July 2024, sent by the planning consultant. Here, the consultant responds – but only partially – to the requests made in the phone call:

“Please see the below and I have copied our client in here:-

“It was an innocent error that the planning application and the ICNIRP certificate referred to Three UK instead of CK Hutchison Networks  (UK) Limited, but a reasonable person would be able to confirm that the name used (Three UK Limited) is a reference to the entity who trade as “Three UK”, Hutchison 3G UK Limited. Especially given the other documents submitted as part of the planning application at question. CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited is on the Ofcom register of persons with powers under the Electronic Communications Code.

The application and the ICNIRP certificate being issued in the incorrect entity name does not invalidate the application or the ICNIRP certificate. The only requirement is that the site has a declaration that it is ICNIRP compliant. The fact that it is in the name of another entity is irrelevant as the ICNIRP, and planning application, relates to the land and development not the applicant. As such the declaration is valid if it is made in good faith by an appropriate professional, which was the case in relation to the planning application at question.

CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited and Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited are the same entity (the latter being their current name, the former their previous name). Ofcom have now updated the code operator register to reflect this – please see following link – Register of persons with powers under the Electronic Communications Code – Ofcom”

All the best,

---

Of course, there are still many questions remaining:

1. Were the applications made in good faith, as described? We don’t know.

2. Thirty seven applications containing bogus conformity statements were made in a detailed and concerted manner – on Wirral alone – over a long period of time. Can all of these questionable, safety critical documents be reasonably viewed as ‘innocent errors’…?

3. We have since discovered a LARGE number of bogus applications made at various local councils right across the country and have placed Freedom of Information requests in an attempt to ascertain the true extent of how widespread the CK Hutchison / Three UK Limited bogus certificates are

4. We are experienced activists, not given to impulse, and will be calmly awaiting the final word of a judge, sooner than relying upon that of a salaried professional ‘with a dog in the fight’

5. Finally, the potentially fraudulent issue of the National Planning Policy Framework official wording being deliberately altered from “near to” to “within” by an unknown person – impacting on a national basis – to avoid having to make consultations over applications near to schools remains unaddressed and raises serious and widespread criminality concerns. Tragically, two special needs children from Liverpool recently died in very suspicious circumstances, with a 4G mast transmitting very close by.

Substack article on the above case by Tess Lawrie

---

Recently lodged Freedom of Information requests with English councils around bogus Mast Safety Certifications signed off by Three UK Limited (dissolved in 2015):

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Response by Kingston upon Thames Borough Council to Paul Cardin on 21 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Response by Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council to Paul Cardin on 21 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Internal review request sent to Sheffield City Council by Paul Cardin on 21 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Internal review request sent to Watford Borough Council by Paul Cardin on 21 July 2024.

Bogus 5G mast Safety Certifications

Internal review request sent to Colchester Borough Council by Paul Cardin on 21 July 2024.

Please send all information pertaining to fraudulent ICNIRP safety certificates

Response by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council to Paul Cardin on 17 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Response by Herefordshire Council to Paul Cardin on 16 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Response by East Riding of Yorkshire Council to Paul Cardin on 16 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Response by Leeds City Council to Paul Cardin on 16 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Response by Newcastle upon Tyne City Council to Paul Cardin on 16 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Response by Wakefield City Council to Paul Cardin on 15 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Response by Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council to Paul Cardin on 15 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Safety Certifications

Response by Bradford City Council to Paul Cardin on 13 July 2024.

Bogus 5G mast Safety Certifications

Response by Sefton Borough Council to Paul Cardin on 10 July 2024.

Bogus 5G mast Safety Certifications

Response by Cheshire East Council to Paul Cardin on 9 July 2024.

Bogus 5G Mast Certifications

Response by Cheshire West and Chester Council to Paul Cardin on 9 July 2024.

Bogus 5G mast Safety Certifications

Response by Manchester City Council to Paul Cardin on 9 July 2024.

Wirral Council investigation into irregularities surrounding 5G mast planning applications

Request sent to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council by Paul Cardin on 8 July 2024.

4G and 5G plans

Request to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council by Paul Cardin. Annotated by Paul Cardin on 15 June 2024.

Which mobile phone / telecoms companies, have approached Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council?

Response by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council to Paul Cardin on 25 March 2024.

Wirral Council 5G strategy and LED streetlighting concerns

Response by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council to Paul Cardin on 5 August 2019.

---

Wirral Residents Association

---

JOIN US at: wirralinittogether@proton.me

Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link

I’ve been very busy … I’ve needed to be. Below are 101 examples of Wirral Labour / Tory / LibDem scandals, abuse of disabled people, corruption, lies, cover-ups, distortions, conflicts of interest, whitewash investigations, kickbacks, cronyism, control of the local media, gags, bumper pay-offs and clean bills of health to the guilty … and much more … all gathered over the last 10 years.

http://paulcardin.substack.com