——– Beginning of forwarded message ——–
11.08.2024, 23:59,
From: Jez Cook
To: planningapplications@wirral.gov.uk (planningapplications@wirral.gov.uk);
Subject: OBJECTION Petition – ANTX/24/00984 – Woodhey Grass Verge, On Town Lane, Higher Bebington, Wirral, CH63 5JB;
ANTX/24/00984
Dear Mr C Heather,
Please find attached a petition containing 41 signatures objecting to the proposed Cornerstone / Vodafone UK Limited mast for
Woodhey Grass Verge, On Town Lane, Higher Bebington, Wirral, CH63 5JB.
With more time, we would have reached 500 signatures. In 2 hours we only received 1 refusal ! Only a few people knew about this negative proposal.
This application is on the back of another application for a mast less than 100 metres from this proposed site on Old Chester Road, that was thankfully rejected by both the Council and the Planning Inspectorate last year.
It was a sense of deja vu for the local residents, as the plan has again generated a lot of public anger. Same as last year, people just didn’t know about the proposal.
If local residents are not told that an untested radiation emitting device is about to be deployed close to their houses and schools, they have every right to be angry ! Whilst collecting signatures, we estimated that just a handful of letters had been distributed around the neighbourhood warning people of this imposition.
Telecom masts emit non ionising wireless radiation. That is an undisputed fact.
In 2011, the World Health Organisation/IARC declared that non ionising wireless radiation is a Class 2B ‘Possible’ Carcinogen.
Based on long standing evidence, experts have been calling for this to be upgraded to the higher classification of ‘Carcinogenic to Humans’ for 13 years now.
People just don’t want these masts around their homes. The New Hampshire Study of Nov 2020 states that all antenna should be at least 500 metres from peoples homes & this mast will be approx 10-15 metres from a few homes !!
Apart from the obvious negative health effects this proposal will generate, the mast and cabinets will ruin the aesthetics of the area as it will be an ugly eyesore on what is a lovely green space. A monstrosity.
The proposed installation will have a massive detrimental effect on what is a busy community driven residential area.
Children are more seriously affected by this environmental toxin than adults, as they absorb more Microwave Radiation because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller.
This is detailed in the study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583
Children play in and around the green space at weekends, and hundreds of children walk past it to school 5 days a week.
Councils follow the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance.
It states in Chapter 10, paragraph 117 that:
‘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:
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…’
Will the council be using the above government issued text OR will they be using the un-authorised doctored version being peddled by the telecom companies and their less than savoury agents ?
The NPPF also states in Chapter 10, paragraph 115:
‘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.’
There are 15 other masts within approximately 1 mile of the proposed siting:
Levers Causeway, Mount Road, The Broadway, Tranmere Rovers Football Club, Bebington Road Flats, St Pauls Road, Woburn Place, Rock Lane West, Knowsley Road Flats, behind John Masefield Pub, Bebington Train Station, Heath Road Bus Stop, New Build off A41 nr William Burton Place, New Build off A41 nr White Bridge Rd, Bromborough Road under Railway bridge.
How many do we need, and is 15 other masts within 1 mile classed as being kept to a minimum ?
What will be local residents cumulative exposure with all these masts close by ?
Who is measuring local residents exposure rates ?
The council defer their legislated for health and safety duties and responsibilities to the government department United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA)
The UKHSA claim to hold the responsibility to protect ‘every member of every community.’
Their only rationale for allowing this dangerous toxin to permeate all areas of the UK, is that ICNIRP say it is safe if its emissions are within the guideline limits.
ICNIRP guidance does not cover anyone with metallic or electric implants, including dental fillings.
What percentage of local residents have pacemakers hearing aids and dental fillings ?
By not conducting an Environmental Risk Assessment and blindly following government guidance and advice, are Wirral Council not discriminating against their tax paying local residents with these implants, whilst breaching both their Duty of Care and the Health And Social Care Act 2012 ?
Local councils are failing to address the health impacts of 5G and therefore failing in their duty to protect their residents. We understand from correspondence with Wirral Council that should councils reject 5G masts on health groundsthey can then be sued for damages by the telecommunication companies. A landmark legal ruling in Nov 2021 took place at the Planning Court, Queens Bench Division, High Courts of Justice, London, with campaigners successfully claiming against Brighton & Hove Council with Hutchison 3G as the interested party. The Honourable Justice Holgate overturned the local authority approval for the 5G mast to be sited close to a primary school. The ruling found that:
‘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 permission was quashed and the council was ordered to pay the claimants costs to the agreed sum of £13,340. This finding has significant implications for all councils dealing with 5G applications, as it means there is legal responsibility to investigate the health effects of 5G technology, despite council insistence on following the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) which advises councils to ignore all health concerns.
In a 2017 UK Supreme Court judgment, Lord Neuberger states:
‘the guidance given by the framework is not to be interpreted as if it were a statute. Its purpose is to express general principles on which decision makers are to proceed in pursuit of sustainable development…’
Thereby confirming the NPPF to be guidance and advice and not legally binding on councils. Although this case was close to a school, it must be noted that ALL of these masts are very close to children’s homes and bedrooms where they spend more time than in schools. In Wirral, there are at least 64 masts located near to schools. We contend that Wirral Council is failing in its duty of care to Wirral’s children in this regard. Please see this link to the associated court case.
https://the5gfacts.co.uk/5g-by-eileen-oconnor/
5G’s safety was untested until this year, with a couple of recent non industry funded tests, which all show a serious cause for concern. In one of the few tests to have actually been done in 2022-23, a healthy 52 year old lady in Sweden moved into a flat directly underneath a new 5G antenna. She quickly developed many symptoms including headaches, sleep problems, body pain, fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, memory loss, confusion, depression, anxiety, irritability, nausea, coughing, nose bleeds and skin rashes. She was moved out of the apartment for a month whereby most of her symptoms disappeared. She was then rehoused in the apartment with the new mast, where upon all of the previous symptoms returned. These symptoms actually have an official classification – microwave syndrome.
Yours sincerely,
J Cook (lead petitioner)
———- Forwarded message ———
From: Jez Cook
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024, 16:11
Subject: added text to already submitted OBJECTION Petition – ANTX/24/00984 – Woodhey Grass Verge, On Town Lane, Higher Bebington, Wirral, CH63 5JB
To: planningapplications@wirral.gov.uk <planningapplications@wirral.gov.uk>
ANTX/24/00984
Dear Mr C Heather
A late reminder, and as I am sure you are aware, St Johns Catholic Infants and Junior Schools are approximately 150 metres from the proposed site for this radiation emitting device.
The applicant will need to PROVIDE the outcome of their consultations with the organisations with an interest in the proposed development, as per NPPF paragraph 121.
121. 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:
(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.
The council should be referring to the government authorised text above, and not the widely used and potentially fraudulently used doctored text, where the word WITHIN has been swapped with the correct word NEAR.
Also, when I quoted this paragraph in the email sent below, I quoted paragraph 117. I believe this was the paragraph number from a previous version of the NPPF. It is from paragraph 121 in the latest version of the NPPF.
Thanks,
J Cook (lead petitioner)
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Amazon link
Wirral In It Together 