| Paul Cardin <gorkys611@googlemail.com> | 8 May 2025 at 00:11 |
| To: “EAGLE, Angela” <angela.eagle.mp@parliament.uk>, alison.mcgovern.mp@parliament.uk, justin.madders.mp@parliament.uk, matthew.patrick.mp@parliament.uk, “Davies, Angie (Councillor)” <angeladavies@wirral.gov.uk>, “Carubia, Christopher D. (Councillor)” <christophercarubia@wirral.gov.uk>, “Grey, Elizabeth A. (Councillor)” <elizabethgrey@wirral.gov.uk>, “Kelly, Stuart E. (Councillor)” <stuartkelly@wirral.gov.uk>, “Foulkes, Steve (Councillor)” <stevefoulkes@wirral.gov.uk>, “Gorman, Harry R. (Councillor)” <harrygorman@wirral.gov.uk>, “Cooper, Graeme (Councillor)” <graemecooper@wirral.gov.uk>, “Hodson, Kathy. (Councillor)” <kathyhodson@wirral.gov.uk>, “Hodson, Andrew C. (Councillor)” <andrewhodson@wirral.gov.uk>, “Lewis, Ian (Councillor)” <ianlewis@wirral.gov.uk>, “Bird, Jo (Councillor)” <jobird@wirral.gov.uk>, “Williamson, Janette (Councillor)” <janwilliamson@wirral.gov.uk>, “Kenny, Brian M. (Councillor)” <briankenny@wirral.gov.uk>, “Stuart, Kaitlin (Councillor)” <kaitlinstuart@wirral.gov.uk>, “Murphy, Kieran (Councillor)” <kieranmurphy@wirral.gov.uk>, “Luxon-Kewley, Louise (Councillor)” <louiseluxonkewley@wirral.gov.uk>, “Laing, James (Councillor)” <jameslaing@wirral.gov.uk>, “Cleary, Pat N. (Councillor)” <patcleary@wirral.gov.uk>, “Graham, Naomi J. (Councillor)” <naomigraham@wirral.gov.uk>, “Onwuemene, Amanda (Councillor)” <amandaonwuemene@wirral.gov.uk>, “Stuart, Paul C. (Councillor)” <paulstuart@wirral.gov.uk>, “Raymond, Helen (Councillor)” <helenraymond@wirral.gov.uk>, “Robinson, Jean M. (Councillor)” <jeanrobinson@wirral.gov.uk>, “Rennie, Lesley A. (Councillor)” <lesleyrennie@wirral.gov.uk>, “Murphy, Tony (Councillor)” <tonymurphy@wirral.gov.uk>, “Tomeny, Ewan (Councillor)” <ewantomeny@wirral.gov.uk>, “Wilson, Vida C. (Councillor)” <vidawilson@wirral.gov.uk>, “Walsh, Jason P. (Councillor)” <jasonwalsh@wirral.gov.uk>, “Powell-Wilde, Sue (Councillor)” <suepowellwilde@wirral.gov.uk>, “Wood, Gillian (Councillor)” <gillianwood@wirral.gov.uk>, “Williams, Jerry (Councillor)” <jerrywilliams@wirral.gov.uk>, “Ainsworth, Ann (Councillor)” <annainsworth@wirral.gov.uk>, “Brame, Allan J.(Councillor)” <allanbrame@wirral.gov.uk>, “Gardner, Andrew M. (Councillor)” <andrewgardner@wirral.gov.uk>, “Baldwin, Colin (Councillor)” <colinbaldwin@wirral.gov.uk>, “Bennett, Gary (Councillor)” <garybennett@wirral.gov.uk>, “Bennett, Stephen (Councillor)” <stephenbennett@wirral.gov.uk>, “Booth, Max D. (Councillor)” <maxbooth@wirral.gov.uk>, “Hall, Brenda (Councillor)” <brendahall@wirral.gov.uk>, “Cameron, Helen J. (Councillor)” <helencameron@wirral.gov.uk>, “Povall, Cherry (Councillor)” <cherrypovall@wirral.gov.uk>, “Cooke, Chris (Councillor)” <chriscooke@wirral.gov.uk>, “McDonald, Craig (Councillor)” <craigmcdonald@wirral.gov.uk>, “Davies, George (Councillor)” <georgedavies@wirral.gov.uk>, “Davies, Graham (Councillor)” <grahamdavies3@wirral.gov.uk>, “Lamb, Ed (Councillor)” <edlamb@wirral.gov.uk>, “Jenkinson, Gail (Councillor)” <gailjenkinson@wirral.gov.uk>, “Gilchrist, Phil N. (Councillor)” <philgilchrist@wirral.gov.uk>, “McManus, Grahame (Councillor)” <grahamemcmanus@wirral.gov.uk>, “Green, Jeff E. (Councillor)” <jeffgreen@wirral.gov.uk>, “Johnson, Jenny (Councillor)” <jennyjohnson2@wirral.gov.uk>, “Jones, Tony J. (Councillor)” <tonyjones@wirral.gov.uk>, “Jordan, Mary (Councillor)” <maryjordan@wirral.gov.uk>, “McManus, Julie (Councillor)” <juliemcmanus@wirral.gov.uk>, “Grier, Judith D. (Councillor)” <judithgrier@wirral.gov.uk>, “Laing, Tom (Councillor)” <tomlaing@wirral.gov.uk>, “Skillicorn, Mark (Councillor)” <markskillicorn@wirral.gov.uk>, “Sullivan, Mike (Councillor)” <mikesullivan@wirral.gov.uk>, “Redfern, Mike (Councillor)” <mikeredfern@wirral.gov.uk>, “Molyneux, Ruth (Councillor)” <ruthmolyneux@wirral.gov.uk>, “Mountney, Simon R. (Councillor)” <simonmountney@wirral.gov.uk>, “Cox, Tony (Councillor)” <tonycox@wirral.gov.uk> | |
| THIS IMPORTANT EMAIL IS ADDRESSED TO ALL WIRRAL MPs and Councillors Dear Wirral MPs and Councillors, Please find below a copy of the Stage II letter we have written and sent today to all the relevant authorities – including Wirral Council – with regard to this case:Wirral Residents Association et al c/o 30 Annesley Road Wallasey CH44 9DA Customer Feedback Team Wirral Council PO Box 290 Brighton Street Wallasey CH27 9FQ 28 April 2025 Dear Customer Feedback Team, One of our group, Jeremy Cook, raised an Urgent Criminal Complaint with the Chief Executive of Wirral Council Paul Satoor on 29 April 2024 regarding the process by which telecommunication companies and their agents apply for Prior Approval for 5G masts in Wirral, specifically through late 2022 and all of 2023. We received the results of Paul Martin’s investigation into the 3 issues raised, 3 months later on 2 August 2024. His investigation was incomplete in that it only dealt with 2 of those 3 issues, and it dealt with them both un-satisfactorily. After a prompting from Paul Cardin of Wirral Residents Association, we received a response from Steven Lacey on 12 November 2024, 6 months after the initial complaint, dealing with the 1 outstanding issue, albeit un-satisfactorily too. We, along with multiples of Wirral’s residents, both within our association and outside, who have read the results of the investigation, find all 3 of their explanations, both individually, and as a whole, un-acceptable, and feel that they have barely investigated the matter. We provided 3 clear evidence based examples of widespread deceptive and deceitful, potentially fraudulent practices, originating within the telecom industry, being administered by agents through Wirral Council’s Planning Department. After reading through their letters, it would appear that they have written to the applicant and/or agent and just accepted the first responses. That should not really be classed as an investigation, let alone a ‘comprehensive investigation’. Upon receiving their inadequate responses, we did a little digging ourselves, as Paul Martin and Steven Lacey should have done, and would like our findings to be examined, along with a re- examination of the original allegations. As a result of these circumstances, we would like to formally escalate our complaint to Stage 2 as outlined in the Wirral Council Complaints Policy, and have both our original complaint of 29 April 2024, as well as Paul Martin’s and Steven Lacey’s un-satisfactory investigations into that complaint, independently examined by a Senior Manager from a different department. We have enclosed an in depth study of the reasons driving our request for escalation to Stage 2, in order to feed into a Senior Manager’s evaluation. We feel it is important that they understand why Paul Martin and Steven Lacey’s investigations are bordering on negligent, and breach many of the duties and obligations they hold as holders of public office. They are clearly un-acceptable to the residents of Wirral. As detailed in Wirral Council Strategies, Policies, Codes and Constitutions, it is incumbent upon Wirral Council’s planning officers to prevent, detect and deter potentially fraudulent behaviour. “Acting robustly and decisively when fraud or corruption is suspected and proven.” “Take the strongest possible action against proven perpetrators of fraud.” “The Council is committed to pursuing disciplinary, criminal and civil sanctions where there is evidence to support the occurrence of fraud.” “Proven cases of fraud, corruption or other irregularity are subject to the severest sanctions being imposed.” “Council will take all action as is necessary to hold perpetrators to account.” “The Council takes fraud and corruption extremely seriously and actively seeks to prevent any level of fraud or corrupt act. All cases of actual or suspected fraud or corruption will be vigorously and promptly investigated and appropriate action will be taken.” The prevention, detection and deterrence of fraud and corruption is a duty for council officers. Paul Martin and Steven Lacey’s explanations fly in the face of their duties and obligations as publicly funded employees acting solely in the public interest, overseen by Nolan. This is an extremely important public safety issue that involves all Wirral residents, children included, and their involuntary exposure to non ionising radiation, an environmental toxin. This critical issue is not being designated with the urgency and seriousness it truly warrants. We have also enclosed a copy of the original Urgent Criminal Complaint (including evidence) of 29 April 2024, along with a copy of all responses from Messr’s Martin and Lacey. We did contact Paul Satoor in May 2022 to inform him of the dangerous nature of this roll-out, and seek his assurances of safety regarding this technology being rolled out in Wirral. He was sent the Wirral 5G Safety Review and made aware of 5G’s hidden dangers at that point. Paul Martin parroted a selection of unsatisfactory government proclamations and seemed more interested in self protection than in genuinely investigating and assuaging our valid concerns. We look forward to receiving your reply, Yours sincerely Wirral Residents Association et al Wirral Residents Association et al c/o 30 Annesley Road Wallasey CH44 9DA Customer Feedback Team Wirral Council PO Box 290 Brighton Street Wallasey CH27 9FQ 28 April 2025 Dear Customer Feedback Team, Paul Martin’s reply of 2 August 2024, with regard to his investigation about the issues raised in the Urgent Criminal Complaint sent to Wirral Council on 29 April 2024, was incomplete. We formally complained about 3 issues more than 11 months ago. He replied on 18 June 2024, stating: “…the Council is extremely concerned about the issues that you have raised and the fact that incorrect company information has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and we are investigating the matter comprehensively.” Paul Martin then provided his ‘comprehensive’ explanations for just 2 of those 3 issues, and in concluding his letter of 2 August 2024, he stated that: “this concludes the council’s investigation and we will now close our file on the matter.” It took a reminder from Paul Cardin from Wirral Residents Association to prompt a reply from Steven Lacey to complete the investigation on 12 November 2024. The two replies both exonerated the actions of the applicant / agents, and seemed keen to defend their apparently poor administrative behaviour. Paul Martin’s reply stated that after contacting the agent of the applicant: “officers have received a response saying that these were innocent errors.’ We will now attempt to show you that these ‘errors’ were maybe not so ‘innocent’ as Wirral Council may have been told by the agents/applicants. Innocent error number 1. Paul Martin’s investigation states that the agents explanation for the first innocent error, that of a non existent company applying for Prior Approval for 4 successful applications, 28 unsuccessful applications along with 1 withdrawn application through late 2022 and all of 2023, was that it was an ‘ innocent error.’ He then wrote: “With regards to the planning applications made to the Council in the name of C.K. Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited then as you have indicated this was the incorrect name of the trading entity registered at Companies House from 16 November 2022. However, even though the correct name of the trading entity at the relevant times was Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited at no time was C.K. Hutchinson Networks (UK) Limited dissolved and hence the corporate body/entity registered under Company Registration No.: 12985914 continued to exist and existed at all material times and as such the Planning Approval granted remains to be valid and the limited company remains to be liable irrespective of what trading name it operates under.” Paul Martin says that although the correct new up to date name of the trading entity at the times of application and decision was Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited, having replaced CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited on 16 November 2022, the latter entity continued, and continues, to exist, as it was never dissolved, with the two companies using one company registration number. He says that it is fine for an application to be submitted in the name of a company that no longer exists, as long as that company name wasn’t dissolved, the new company remains in existence and they share the same company registration number. We thank you for this information. Whilst we now understand this to be correct, wrong as it may seem, it does have potential implications regarding the significant tax obligations that 33 planning applications and 3 installations would incur. One also wonders how many times a company can do this – can a company change names 10 times to provide 10 different shadow operating entities ? Notwithstanding this new information from Paul Martin’s investigation, in order to understand the ‘innocence’ of this first ‘error’ a little more, it may be necessary to become aware of the dates upon which these two companies with the same registration number appeared on Ofcom’s “Register of persons with powers under the Electronic Communications Code,” together with the dates of the successful applications, along with Wirral Council’s decision dates. In order to install, operate and maintain telecommunications equipment in the public arena, Mobile Network Operators must be listed on Ofcom’s “Register of persons with powers under the Electronic Communications Code.” CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited was listed on Ofcom’s Register of persons with powers under the Electronic Communications Code all through 2022, and up until 4 September 2023, despite not trading after 16 November 2022. Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited appeared for the first time on the Ofcom Register of persons with powers under the Electronic Communications Code on 4 October 2023, nearly 11 months after its inception on 16 November 2022. CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited put in 33 applications using this expired company name from late 2022 and all of 2023. Of those, 4 were approved, 1 was withdrawn and 28 were refused. The applicant / agent appealed 6 of the refusals with the Planning Inspectorate. The 4 successful applications and 1 successful appeal are listed below, along with the 1 successful Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited application. The following abbreviations are for the following table: CKH – CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited. CI – Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited. WC – Wirral Council. PI – Planning Inspectorate. Dock Rd – CKH application – 21 December 2022, WC approved – 27 February 2023 Hoylake Rd – CKH application – 21 December 2022, WC approved – 28 February 2023 Borough Way – CKH application – 6 January 2023, WC approved – 3 March 2023 Barnston Rd – CKH application – 6 January 2023, WC approved – 16 March 2023 … Arrowe Pk Rd – CKH application – 10 Feb 2023, WC refused – 20 Apr 2023, PI appeal – 30 Jul 2023 … Laird Street – CI application – 14 June 2023, WC approved – 8 August 2023 At the time of all 5 of their applications listed above and all 5 of Wirral Council’s decisions also listed above, including the 1 Planning Inspectorate appealed decision, CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited were still present on Ofcom’s Register of persons with powers under the Electronic Communications Code. So despite not trading as a company, they still managed to apply for Prior Approval, thereby operating as a trading company. It is likely that the reason for this ‘innocent error’ could be that using the old non trading entity CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited as the applicant, allowed Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited, the correct up to date company, to apply for Prior Approval on multiple 5G mast applications, before they were legally allowed to, and not wait until their appearance on the Register on 4 October 2023, allowing them to get their masts hoisted, up to 10 months before they were permitted to. The ‘error’ is not really so ‘innocent’ when viewed this way. In fact, should this be the case, it would indicate an intent to deceive and provide a motive. The applicant in the first 5 of the 6 applications listed above was CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited, guided by Tom Gallivan of the agents Dot Surveying Limited. It seems that Tom Gallivan of Dot Surveying Limited was a little dishonest in his applications in order to comply with Ofcom’s requirements to be on the Register. It is interesting that this was not pointed out by the agents when responding to Wirral Council’s investigation. Mr Gallivan was being a little disingenuous by calling this an ‘innocent error’ when it seems pretty clear that he withheld important information and also provided false information, knowing it to be false in order to secure personal gain. One wonders why Mr Gallivan did not explain the real reason that Dot Surveying Limited used a different name to apply for Prior Approval on the 5 masts, being that we are told it is perfectly legal. The applicant in the 6th application, Laird Street, was Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited, guided by Ryan Marshall of the agents WHP Telecoms Limited. Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited were not on Ofcom’s Register of persons with powers under the Electronic Communications Code, both when their 1 application for Laird Street was submitted and when Wirral Council approved it. Until they appeared on the Register on 4 October 2023, the applicant and their agent had no legal right to apply for Prior Approval for 5G telecom masts, and Wirral Council had no legal right to approve the application. This makes both the application and the decision into unlawful acts. WHP Telecoms Limited applied for Prior Approval for Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited on 14 June 2023, four months before they were legally entitled to apply, and Wirral Council approved their application two months later on 8 August 2023, two months before they were legally entitled to. Wirral Councils approval of Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited’s application was a blatantly unlawful decision. Ryan Marshall of WHP Telecoms Limited did not perform the same sleight of hand that Dot Surveying Limited performed on multiple applications, and was more honest in his application, but that meant that Wirral Council should have refused the Laird Street application because the correctly named applicant was not on Ofcom’s Register at neither the time of the application nor the time of the decision. Yet in his investigation Mr Martin says: “It appears that there was no intention to commit a fraud or otherwise mislead the Council but this is a case of very poor document management by the applicant and/or their agent. As I am sure you are aware there is no specific enforcement power which relates to an applicant having used incorrect information as to the name of the applicant etc” No intent to mislead the council and very poor document management, OR a clear intent to deceive the council and deceptive document management ? I can tell you what it looks like from the outside if you wish. Mr Martin followed with: “If following the approval of an application it comes to light that it included deliberately misleading information, or purposely withheld information that would have been material to the decision, then depending upon the facts there may be options available to the Local Planning Authority to deal with the matter, namely: – It could be the case that the applicant (or their agent) has committed an act of [criminal] fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. This would require an investigation and evidence to show that the applicant (or their agent) has dishonestly provided false information, knowing such information to be false , with an intention to secure a personal gain or a loss/detriment for another. This is a very high hurdle to get over, especially in terms of the present scenario of the making of a planning application. If this was the intention of the applicant and was an attempt, nationally, to deceive Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, then this would be a serious matter for the Policing bodies who the allegations have also been sent to. – In addition there is precedent for planning approvals that have been in place for an extended time to be quashed by the Courts where the case was “exceptional and unique”, the parties agreed the Permission was unlawful and made in error, and the credibility of the planning system needed to be protected ! In order to be able to pursue either of the options above there would have had to have been some purposeful intention to mislead the Local Planning Authority into granting the relevant permission and a resultant gain or loss as described above. An inadvertent mistake or sheer negligence on the part of an applicant or their agent would not be actionable. In making their enquiries Officers have found no evidence of fraud either on the part of the Applicant or their Agent or any purposeful intention to mislead the Local Planning Authority and accepts the explanation that the issues identified by yourself were innocent errors.” Looking at the facts, its difficult to escape the conclusion that the applicant and/or the agents, have included: “deliberately misleading information, or purposely withheld information that would have been material to the decision,” and have: “dishonestly provided false information, knowing such information to be false, with an intention to secure a personal gain,” and shown that this was the: “intention of the applicant and was an attempt, nationally, to deceive Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate,” and shown there was: “purposeful intention to mislead the Local Planning Authority.” meaning: “then this would be a serious matter for the Policing bodies who the allegations have also been sent to.” It would seem that Wirral Council’s officers were eager to regularise the situation if that is how easily they were convinced of the innocence of the errors. They mustn’t have looked too hard with their investigating and been quite easily convinced to believe that this was an innocent error, when with a wee bit of digging, it would have become clearer that this was clearly not the case. It seems that Wirral Council’s officers have spent about as much time and due diligence investigating these issues as they spent approving them. It would also seem to someone with clean eyes and clean hands, that the applicant or agent provided false information, knowing such information to be false, with an intention to secure a personal gain, and an attempt to deceive Wirral Council and The Planning Inspectorate. We also have access to a letter from a Mr Weavers, Head of Governance at Colchester Council, where he stated: “I confirm, however, that the council will not process any applications where the applicant, operator or ICNIRP declarations are not from active companies.” It would also be reasonable to assume that Colchester Council and Wirral Council are not the only 2 councils fooled into these errors, which would also push these complaints much nearer to: “an attempt, nationally, to deceive Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, then this would be a serious matter for the Policing bodies who the allegations have also been sent to. In addition there is a precedent for planning approvals that have been in place for an extended time to be quashed by the Courts where the case was ‘exceptional and unique,’ the parties agreed the Permission was unlawful and made in error, and the credibility of the planning system needed to be protected.” It would appear that the credibility of the planning system has certainly been compromised and faith in its integrity needs to be restored. From our own investigation to supplement Wirral Council’s seemingly inadequate investigation, we deduce that Paul Martins findings seem to be blighted by the same lack of due diligence that plagued Wirral Council’s initial decision regarding ‘error’ number 1. Whilst technically legal, the 33 applications (28 refusals, 1 withdrawal and 4 approvals) reek of deception. There is every possibility that the explanation of innocence is not truthful. If indeed the telecom companies or their agents have been economical with the truth to Wirral Council about these applications, the question must be asked, what else might they have lied about ? The applicant/agent has exhibited an intent to deceive Wirral Council both at the application stage and at the investigation stage. It is clear to anyone who looks, other than those with a pre-determined bias, that the reason for the use of the non existent name, was to align with the Register, and not an innocent error as claimed, meaning that the 4 decisions by Wirral Council and 1 decision by the Planning Inspectorate regarding CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited applications were technically legitimate, but are riddled with deceit. The 1 approval of the Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited application for Laird Street remains unlawful and illegal, and that has yet to be addressed. Innocent error number 2. 37 of the 43 applications made to Wirral Council through late 2022 and all of 2023, including the 4 decisions approved and 1 appeal allowed by the Planning Inspectorate, for CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited, were supported by a potentially fraudulent certified Declaration of Conformity to ICNIRP Safety Guidelines, a forged and false instrument, apparently issued by Three UK Limited, who were dissolved in 2015. These false instruments or forgeries were submitted in all of the 37 applications, which assisted in them being approved. They would not have been approved without these false instruments. We now know that it was a false instrument all along. As the instrument must now be removed from the applications, this means that the applications did not and do not comply with the requirement for an ICNIRP declaration, and haven’t since they were approved in 2023. Three UK Limited was the name of the trading entity registered as the declarant on the Declaration of Conformity to ICNIRP guidelines on all relevant applications for Prior Approval listed above. It was dissolved as a company in 2015, and thus did not exist at any material times, rendering these declarations invalid from their inception. Three UK Limited were registered as a furniture fittings company. Paul Martin moves onto this second innocent error, regarding the ICNIRP Declaration of Conformity and states: “As stated above the Applicant’s Agent has admitted its error and has now provided the Council’s Development Control Service a correct and appropriately named ” He didn’t complete that sentence, and followed it with: “By correcting the record this effectively regularises the situation to the satisfaction of the council. The Agent will be asked to provide correctly named Certificates for all the relevant planning applications which will be put on file to similarly correct the record.” As we type this letter at the end of April 2025, almost 9 months after Paul Martins letter, no correctly issued Declarations have been added to Wirral Council’s Planning Portal, and all of the original fraudulent Declarations from Three UK Limited are still posted and available to view, as they were when our original complaint was made last year ! Paul Martin then contradicts himself by stating that: “If at the time of submission and consideration of an application the Local Planning Authority consider that the information provided does not accurately or fully describe the proposed development, or that it is in some way misleading/incorrect, it is entitled to ask the applicant to amend it or rectify any errors/omissions before it agrees to process the application.” Paul Martin’s acceptance of re-submitted Declarations in his letter dated 2 August 2024 was most definitely not at the time of submission and consideration of the applications, and also not before the Planning Department agreed to process the applications between 21 December 2022 and 20 April 2023, as he has stated above. Simply now issuing an after the fact Declaration would not be the requisite legal remedy. A decision taken in the past with the information given fraudulently, cannot be corrected later simply by making a new Declaration. Many councils in similar circumstances have enforced demolition of extensions and even whole properties. Local authorities are the only organisations that can give or refuse permission for a company to erect a telecoms structure. They have a duty of care. Failing to exercise due diligence on a potential issue of counterfeiting or fraud or any other illegality is possibly negligence or even a dereliction of public duty and responsibility. Paul Martin stated: “The applicants agent has admitted its error.” The applicants agent in 5 of the 6 cases listed, with the exception of Laird Street, was Tom Gallivan from Dot Surveying Limited. Paul Martin seems eager to regularise the situation if that is how easily he is satisfied that these multiple ‘innocent errors’ are all innocent, especially in light of the additional new information our diligence has brought to light. We have it on record that numerous other councils up and down the country make the claim, as Wirral Council, that: “it is the accepted role of a Local Planning Authority to accept documents submitted with a planning application at face value.” Conversely, we have 2 separate replies from the National Planning Inspectorate last year stating: “any issues regarding certificates or declarations would be a matter that the council would have to deal with, as they would need to be satisfied with all of the documents before making any decisions.” and: “The ICNIRP documents submitted with an appeal are copies of those which were accepted by the Council at planning application stage. As is the case with all application documentation received by a council, the onus is on them to ensure that any ICNIRP documents submitted are acceptable to ensure a valid planning application submission.” The Planning Inspectorate seem to be classing an application with incorrect ICNIRP documents as an invalid planning application submission. As mentioned in issue number 1, the letter from Mr Weavers, Head of Governance at Colchester Council, where he stated: “I confirm, however, that the council will not process any applications where the applicant, operator or ICNIRP declarations are not from active companies.” In the Thomas vs Cheltenham Council case, Judge Jarman talked about the issuance of the certificate by a dissolved company in his approved judgement of 3 May 2024 where he stated: “Although nothing turns upon it in the present case, it does emphasise the importance of local planning authorities checking the validity of such declarations.” Unsurprisingly, Three UK Limited, the dissolved furniture company were also not listed on Ofcom’s “Register of persons with powers under the Electronic Communications Code” which invalidates their possibly fraudulent inclusion as guarantor. Therefore, it is vitally important that Wirral Council can show to its residents that it has performed its due diligence carefully and properly in its acceptance of any Declaration of ICNIRP Compliance, as a safeguard to the public health of its residents. If Wirral Council were to say to Wirral’s residents that it order to guarantee their health, it had relied on a certificate submitted from a furniture company that was never even involved in the telecom industry in the first place, and that was dissolved 10 years ago and thus no longer existed, would that be at all acceptable to any council tax payer ? If Wirral Council were to face such a potential claim from any of its residents and a court discovered that in order to protect and safeguard public health they had relied on an ICNIRP Declaration of Compliance from a non-existent enterprise, one which had no prior involvement in the telecom industry, it would be logical to assume that the court might well uphold such a potential claim. Then the question arises as to who would pay the costs. Given that many councils are currently short of money, such a claim might push a relevant council into Section 114 measures. It seems that these 4 approvals by Wirral Council and 1 appeal granted by the Planning Inspectorate were illegal and unlawful, made in error and should be quashed as efforts are made to return the 2 sites installed and operating at Hoylake Road and Arrowe Park Road to their former condition. Since their inception up until the current time, these 2 installations have been operating illegally, without the required Declaration of Conformity to ICNIRP Safety Guidelines. It would appear that the credibility of the planning system has certainly been compromised and faith in its integrity needs to be restored. Innocent error number 3. Finally, the third innocent error and the issue that Mr Martin did not cover in his letter, was the un-authorised amendment to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) text. We would like to think it was just a simple oversight that he didn’t cover this particular issue. Thank you Mr Lacey for attempting to complete the investigation. This is in regard to The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Dec 2023 version, which states in chapter 10: “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.” Wirral Council’s published version of the same passage, used in all planning applications for 5G masts in late 2022, throughout 2023 and into 2024 is not the same, reads differently, conveys a different meaning and is misleading: “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 within a school or college.” This unauthorised amendment/unintentional typographical error materially changes the advice in a way that benefits the applicant/agent. The differences between ‘near’ and ‘within’ can be debated, but by using the word ‘within’ it allows the applicant/agent to apply for masts anywhere outside a school’s grounds without the need for the aforementioned consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed development, in particular with the relevant body, and then providing the evidence from those consultations, as specified in the NPPF. Consultations would only become necessary should the proposed mast actually be on the school grounds. The word swap saves the applicant/agent time, effort and money. Mr Lacey explains the word swap by stating: “I can confirm that the council has unintentionally misquoted paragraph 117a of the NPPF in its case officer report by using the word ‘within’ rather than the word ‘near.’” He goes on to say: “I apologise for the typographical error and I have communicated this error to my officers to ensure that such an error does not occur moving forwards.” In replying that this was an unintentional typographical error, it seems Mr Lacey and Wirral Council are claiming that someone within Wirral’s Planning Department has read the word ‘near’ in the agents application or in the National Planning Policy Framework document, and then typed the word ‘within’ into their report, in error. That is unless they have copy and pasted the passage from another document, but this means that the source document will have had the error already displayed. Whether it was ‘near’ or ‘within’ and whether the distance was 10 metres or 300 metres is really not so important as the principle of attempting to misrepresent authorised government guidance and advice to potentially secure a material advantage for a commercial entity and assist them in obtaining services dishonestly by creating a false or forged instrument and exhibiting an intent to deceive. This was a clear act of fraud by misrepresentation, under the Fraud Act 2006. Regardless of Steven Lacey’s personal opinions on what distance constitutes ‘near,’ we have it from a number of councils that the distance is thought to mean between 200 and 300 metres away. Left in place, the net result of this unauthorised amendment would be the installation of powerful non ionising radiation emitting transmitters much closer to places where children as young as 5 spend up to 35 hours per week. This misrepresentation was evident in all 43 applications to Wirral Council late 2022 and throughout 2023, including the 5+1 approvals (5 from Wirral Council and 1 from the Planning Inspectorate) listed in our original complaint. Mr Lacey’s claim, and apology for, Wirral Council’s unintentional typographical error, may indeed be genuine and truthful and 100% in the spirit of Nolan, if it weren’t for the fact that the same unintentional typographical error has been replicated by a number of councils across the country ! A crazy coincidence theory. Different councils tapping their keyboards with the exact same ‘unintentional’ typographical error ! It is unlikely that this error was made by a Wirral Council officer, as Steven Lacey claims, it seems to be a large scale and intentional deception likely performed by the applicant/agent to minimise time, effort and expenditure, to speed up applications and to enable these masts to be placed closer to schools. If by attempting to take the blame for something that Wirral Council likely did not do, Mr Lacey is being less than honest about the reasons for the applicant/agents allegedly innocent errors, then both the fox and the hen are not telling the truth as required by almost every code by which council officers and contractors to the council must operate, and the stench of a cover up is beginning to spread. To summarise. We complained to the Chief Executive of Wirral Council Paul Satoor on 29 April 2024 by way of an Urgent Criminal Complaint regarding 3 evidenced examples of potential Maladministration within Wirral Council’s Planning Department when dealing with 37 potentially fraudulent applications out of a total of 43 applications for Prior Approval for telecom masts in late 2022 and all of 2023 from unconfirmed actors from within the telecom industry. A total of 5 of these 43 applications were approved within Wirral Council’s Planning Department, showing a complete lack of genuine due diligence leading to a possible Failure to Prevent Fraud. In response to our complaint, Wirral Councils 6 month investigation found that all 3 counts amounted to ‘innocent errors’ on the part of the applicant or agent. They claim the 3 errors were an administrative error, an innocent error and an unintentional typographical error. The lack of diligence being evident within both the Planning Departments consideration and Wirral Councils investigation. Taken individually, its easier to acknowledge the possibility of 1 of these issues being an innocent error, but when it is all 3 of the issues explained as being innocent errors, it seems a bit of a stretch to believe, and thus required a little further investigation from us. The first issue we raised covers the use of a company which does not exist as the applicant in 33 out of 43 applications (4 of which were successful) during the late 2022-23 period. Paul Martin’s explanation pointed out the innocence of the protagonists in what can only be described as an ‘innocent error’ of the administrative kind. The second issue raised concerned a different non existent company, not even involved in telecoms, dissolved 10 years ago, as guarantor of safety on the ICNIRP Safety Declaration in 37 out of those 43 applications last year, 5 of which were successful. Paul Martin also classed this as an ‘innocent error.’ The third issue raised involved the unauthorised alteration of text within an official government document. Steven Lacey explains this as an ‘unintentional typographical error,’ by one of Wirral Councils officers, for which he apologised. The two letters from Paul Martin and Steven Lacey make it clear that in their own judgement, there has been no intent to deceive the council and commit fraud. They accept the explanations from the applicant/agent of innocent errors on all 3 counts. The innocence of these errors is definitely questionable if all 3 errors served to benefit the agent/applicant. It is safe to assume that when Al Capone was charged and convicted with tax evasion in 1931, his initial response to Eliot Ness would have echoed the agents responses. This is yet more evidence of a pattern of fraudulent behaviour instigated by agents within the telecom sector and facilitated by the UK government and its obedient minions at Wirral Council and in all local authorities around this once great country. Wirral Council failed to pick up any of this, and in fact either sought to cover it up, or were extremely naive within their investigation. This is unacceptable to the residents of Wirral. We deserve so much better than this. As the inadequate investigation failed to properly investigate our complaint, we conducted our own. Our research has uncovered information that shows that these multiple errors were not innocent as claimed and all 3 errors served to benefit the agent/applicant. The councils ‘investigation’ did not pick any of this up. It is for these reasons and more that we would like to formally request that our complaint is escalated to Stage 2 of Wirral Council’s Complaints Procedure. Considering the application process we witnessed over late 2022 and all through 2023, and Wirral Council’s investigation into our allegations regarding that process, Wirral’s residents are entitled to know whether these Acts, Reports, Codes, Strategies, Policies, Constitutions, Principles, Guidelines, Court Judgements, Frameworks, Admissions, Indemnifications, Classifications and Potential Charges are really worth the paper they are printed on ? It would seem that despite having these promises, agreements and implied contracts in place, fraud, or negligent administration at best, is still going unmonitored, despite being reported, and even being denied and covered up by council officers ! Recent court judgments and increasingly regular scientific study releases are causing growing numbers of people to understand the silent, cumulative and gradual harms this apparently benign technology is causing to all life on earth. The list of the government’s incompetent, dangerous and criminally negligent projects grows. Thalidomide, asbestos, smoking, swine flu vaccines, poll tax, wars in the middle east, fracking, austerity, HS2, PFI, NHS privatisation/internal markets, Education privatisation, smart motorways and covid vaccines. This is a growing list and a cause for great alarm. You can now add 5G to that list. People are only now beginning to see that it is a dangerous and untested technology that irradiates people without them knowing it, whilst the government submit to political and commercial pressures and actively promote and protect it. Clear indications that a belligerent UK Government has failed and is failing the UK population, and are not to be trusted where public safety is concerned, which has the obvious knock on effects with Wirral Council’s behaviour towards its residents. To avoid further action, please respond in substance to the original allegations and the inadequate ‘comprehensive’ investigation into them within 15 working days from the date of this communication, as specified in your Complaints Policy. Yours sincerely Wirral Residents Association et al. PS. We have enclosed 5 short documents put together by Mr Ian Jarvis and Mr Nicholas Martin on behalf of Aches (Adult Child Health and Environmental Support) with some very concerning information regarding this entire roll out. We have used some of that information in this communication. We believe they have sent some or all of these documents to all councils in the UK, so you may already have copies. Important Supplementary Information. 6 Acts, 1 Report, 1 Code, 1 Strategy, 1 Policy, 1 Constitution, 1 set of Principles, 1 set of Guidelines, 2 Court Judgements, 1 Framework, 1 Admission, 1 piece of Information, 1 Indemnification, 1 Classification and 1 potential charge. 20 different documents and commentaries to support the 3 allegations of fraud mentioned above, and the mismanagement of the applications from telecom companies and their agents for Prior Approval by Wirral Council, along with the completely unsatisfactory investigation into these matters by Wirral Council. The applicant and/or agent potentially breach some of the Acts. Wirral Council potentially breach some of the Acts. Some of the Acts are designed to protect Wirral’s residents interests and yet are being ignored. The Reports, Codes, Strategies, Policies, Constitution, Principles, Guidelines, Court Judgements, Frameworks, Admissions, Indemnifications and Classifications and Charges all highlight the Mismanagement and the flagrant hypocrisy of Wirral Council, as well as the inadequacy of the alleged investigation. 1. The Fraud Act 2006. 2. The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. 3. Health and Social Care Act 2012. 4. The Localism Act 2011. 5. The Equality Act 2010. 6. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. 7. Wirral Council’s Internal Audit Counter Fraud Report. 8. Wirral Council Employee’s Code of Conduct. 9. Wirral Council Counter Fraud and Corruption Strategy. 10. The Wirral Constitution. 11. The Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life. 12. The ICNIRP Guidelines 1998, 2010 and 2020. 13. Steven Thomas vs Cheltenham Borough Council – 13 March 2025. 14. Carol Springgay vs Brighton and Hove City Council Judicial Review – 2 November 2021. 15. The National Planning Policy Framework. 16. Admission of evidence as to the harms of the technology. 17. Information provided by the Applicants within all of the applications. 18. Public Liability Insurance Indemnification. 19. World Health Organisation (WHO) – Classification of possible carcinogenicity. 20. Misconduct in Public Office (Misfeasance / Malfeasance / Nonfeasance.) 1. The Fraud Act 2006. The successful applications for Prior Approval listed in the original complaint of 29 April 2024, submitted by the agents Dot Surveying Limited on behalf of the applicant CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited possibly breach the 3 offences listed below as well as the new offence listed in The Fraud Act 2006. “The Fraud Act 2006 provides one general offence of fraud which can be committed in three different ways: (i) By false representation (ii) By failing to disclose information (iii) By abuse of position The Act also created the key new offence of obtaining services dishonestly.” In the legal case Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley in 1956, Lord Denning said: “No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever…” 2. The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. Paul Martin stated in his investigation that: “it is the accepted role of a Local Planning Authority to accept documents submitted with a planning application at face value.” Three UK Limited are the company that have been used as the guarantor of safety on thousands of Declarations of Conformity to ICNIRP Safety Guidelines all over the UK over the past decade or so, including 37 in Wirral in late 2022 through all of 2023. Three UK Limited was dissolved on 27 October 2015. Companies House filings show, in a 1995 return, that Three UK Limited was operating in ‘internal display fittings’ and not in the telecom industry. We have been made aware that Hutchison 3G UK Limited knew that Three UK Limited did not exist as a company. Sections 1, 2 and 4 of the Act create the offences of ‘Forgery’ and of ‘Copying a False Instrument’ and ‘Using a Copy of a False Instrument’: “1. The offence of forgery. A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. 2. The offence of copying a false instrument. It is an offence for a person to make a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.” 4. The offence of using a copy of a false instrument. It is an offence for a person to use a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.” The question arises as to why certificates were issued in this context. A retired police inspector made the following summary in relation to possible offences by the applicant and/or the agent under The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981: “I believe Section 9(1)(b) fits the scenario: ‘An instrument is false if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise its making in that form.’ So the instrument is false if it tells a lie about itself in that it purports to have been made by Three UK Limited, which is impossible because that corporation is no longer trading. Which leads us to the question ‘Why?’ Section 10(1)(b)(ii) states: ‘an act or omission intended to be induced is to a person’s prejudice if, and only if, it is one which, if it occurs— (b) will result in somebody being given an opportunity— (ii) to gain a financial advantage from him otherwise than by way of remuneration; or…’ The argument here I would suggest is that the intended act to be induced by the person accepting the certificate as genuine is for the planning application to be approved and the financial advantage would be that in the event of an incident or claim related to the mast in question, the telecom company would not be the liable party – that would fall to the council who accepted the false instrument as genuine.” Sections 3 of the Act creates the offence of ‘Using a False Instrument’ “3. The offence of using a false instrument. It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. “So this is our initial position in reporting the crime allegation, we have potential offences of making and using a false instrument, however, it will be prudent to mention that this is not an isolated incident, and that a number of employees at various locations in the UK are submitting these false instruments intending that they be accepted as genuine. This would suggest a pattern of behaviour that is potentially about avoiding liability in the event of any incidents or claims in relation to specific masts, which gives the telecom company a financial advantage (a potentially huge one).” If it should be the case that an applicant and/or agent was not in fact empowered to make such applications for any of the following reasons, then surely it would be logical to revoke any relevant planning permission already granted because: a) the applicant on the certificate not being on the Ofcom’s ‘Register of Persons with Powers under the Electronic Communications Code’ at the time of the relevant planning application, b) the Declaration of ICNIRP Compliance submitted with such an application was issued in the name of a dissolved non-existent company, c) the applicant did not have any involvement, prior to its dissolution, in the telecom industry. Maybe it would be pertinent for Wirral Council to examine its records carefully to see if the above paragraphs pertained to it. Penalties for offences under part 1 of the Act listed above include: 6. Penalties for offences under Part I. “(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act shall be liable on summary conviction— (a) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or (b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or (c) to both. (2) A person guilty of an offence to which this subsection applies shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.” Councils do have the power to revoke any planning permission if they consider it expedient under Section 97 of The Town & Country Planning Act 1990. “97. Power to revoke or modify planning permission (1) If it appears to the local planning authority that it is expedient to revoke or modify (a) any permission (including permission in principle) to develop land granted on an application made under this Part, or (b) any permission in principle granted by a development order, the authority may by order revoke or modify the permission to such extent as they consider expedient.” It is interesting to note that where councils have rejected a mast application based on the inadequacy of an ICNIRP certificate – and a telecom company has subsequently appealed such a refusal to the National Planning Inspectorate (NPI) in order to achieve a decision reversal – the National Planning Inspectorate set a precedent in backing the relevant council. For reference please see NPI decision APP/T2215/W/22/3309680. 3. Health and Social Care Act 2012. The actions and/or lack of actions of Wirral Council may also breach the Health and Social Care Act 2012, where it states: “Section 58 – Radiation protection functions (1) The appropriate authority must take such steps as it considers appropriate for the purposes of protecting the public from radiation (whether ionising or not). (2) The steps that may be taken under subsection (1) include— (a) the conduct of research or such other steps as the appropriate authority considers appropriate for advancing knowledge and understanding; (b) providing technical services (whether in laboratories or otherwise); (c) providing services for the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness arising from exposure to radiation; (d) providing training; (e) providing information and advice; (f) making available the services of any person or any facilities.” It is hard to imagine that carcinogenic radiation from telecom masts proximal to schools, residential areas, hospitals, churches and public buildings, sanctioned by local planners would be in conformance with this act, especially with local authorities being obligated to take the steps it considered appropriate for improving the health of the people in its area. The above mentioned (c) providing services for the prevention of exposure to radiation for residents with electrical implants and devices is also an area we are looking into. 4. The Localism Act 2011. Under their granted General Power of Competence, Wirral Council do not have to follow all rulings recommended by the government, including the NPPF. They are able to steer their own path, chiselled by their own local duties and obligations, unless that path breaches other legislation. The Act also introduced the right of community groups to challenge local authorities over their services, and made it a criminal offence to deliberately fail to declare a personal interest in a matter. This Act was passed and given Royal Assent in 2011. 1. Local authority’s general power of competence (1) A local authority has power to do anything that individuals generally may do. (2) Subsection (1) applies to things that an individual may do even though they are in nature, extent or otherwise— (a) unlike anything the authority may do apart from subsection (1), or (b) unlike anything that other public bodies may do. (3) In this section “individual” means an individual with full capacity. (4) Where subsection (1) confers power on the authority to do something, it confers power (subject to sections 2 to 4) to do it in any way whatever, including— (a) power to do it anywhere in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, (b) power to do it for a commercial purpose or otherwise for a charge, or without charge, and (c) power to do it for, or otherwise than for, the benefit of the authority, its area or persons resident or present in its area. According to ‘A plain English guide to The Localism Act 2011’: “Local authorities’ powers and responsibilities are defined by legislation. In simple terms, they can only do what the law says they can. Sometimes councils are wary of doing something new – even if they think it might be a good idea – because they are not sure whether they are allowed to in law, and are concerned about the possibility of being challenged in the courts. The Government has turned this assumption upside down. Instead of being able to act only where the law says they can, local authorities will be freed to do anything – provided they do not break other laws. The Localism Act includes a ‘general power of competence’. It gives local authorities the legal capacity to do anything that an individual can do that is not specifically prohibited; they will not, for example, be able to impose new taxes, as an individual has no power to tax.” Put simply, Paul Martin’s previous assertion to us on 8 July 2022 that: “As such the council must have statutory authority (a legal power) for any decision or action it takes, and such decisions and actions must be within the terms or requirements of any applicable legal requirements placed upon the Council. Any decision or action taken without having the necessary statutory authority or outside of any legal requirements or limitations placed upon the Council, will be unlawful and open to challenge…” This was not strictly correct. As outlined in The Localism Act 2011, Wirral Council has the authority to make any decisions it wishes to, as long as they don’t conflict with other legislation. This means the council is free to take residents’ concerns about health as a result of exposure to the radiation from a 5G installation as a serious and material consideration in planning applications for telecom masts. 5. The Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from various forms of discrimination in the workplace and in wider society. It sets out the different ways in which it’s unlawful to treat someone. It is possible that Wirral Council have breached the Equality Act 2010 in not conducting any form of assessment of the impacts of exposure to non ionising radiation (an environmental toxin) on people with active implantable medical devices fitted, and secondly for not offering any protection against it’s harmful effects on them. Under the Equality Act 2010 if a person has a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on their ability to conduct normal daily activities, they are classed as being ‘disabled’ and become vulnerable to ‘discrimination arising from a disability.’ Those activities cover a range of circumstances including the provision of goods, facilities and services, and the exercise of public functions at premises for work, education, and associations. ‘Indirect discrimination’ is where a person or organisation has practices or arrangements that seem to treat everyone in an equal, non-discriminatory way. But these practices or arrangements put the person with the protected characteristic and others with similar disabilities at an unfair disadvantage compared with those who do not have the disability. An impairment might not have a substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to undertake a particular day-to-day activity in isolation. However, it is important to consider whether the cumulative effects on more than one activity, when taken together, could result in a more overall and substantial adverse effect. Reasonable adjustments are changes that organisations, people providing services, or people providing public functions have to make for the disabled persons. They must make these changes to prevent their disability putting them at a disadvantage compared with others who are not disabled. The Equality Act 2010 states: 6. Disability (1) A person (P) has a disability if— (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. 19. Indirect discrimination (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s if— (a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic, (b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it, (c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and (d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (3) The relevant protected characteristics are— age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation. 20. Duty to make adjustments (1) Where this Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments on a person, this section, sections 21 and 22 and the applicable Schedule apply; and for those purposes, a person on whom the duty is imposed is referred to as A. (2) The duty comprises the following three requirements. (3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A’s puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. (4) The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. (7) A person (A) who is subject to a duty to make reasonable adjustments is not (subject to express provision to the contrary) entitled to require a disabled person, in relation to whom A is required to comply with the duty, to pay to any extent A’s costs of complying with the duty. (9) In relation to the second requirement, a reference in this section or an applicable Schedule to avoiding a substantial disadvantage includes a reference to— (a) removing the physical feature in question, (b) altering it, or (c) providing a reasonable means of avoiding it. 21. Failure to comply with duty (1) A failure to comply with the first, second or third requirement is a failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments. The scant regard paid to genuine public safety by public officials towards those with various disabilities requiring electrical medical implants, who require extra help and consideration, when faced with involuntary exposure to this environmental toxin, and yet are ignored and left vulnerable, represents flagrant breaches of the Act. These vulnerable individuals are treated the same as everyone else, lumped in with the general populations exposure levels, even when they are singled out as being outside of the scope of the safety guidelines. It is as if they are being ignored by the UK government and by Wirral Council. This is a dangerous form of discrimination, that puts these individuals at risk of harm and damage. The one denominating factor throughout all of this sad tale, is Wirral Council’s inability to recognise that what we are dealing with here is not a standard planning matter; these are matters of basic public safety. The installation of these masts, closer and closer to both peoples homes and children’s schools in particular, represents a real, clear and present threat to the health and safety of all of the residents of Wirral. We have been trying to inform Wirral Council of this for 3 years now. Recent research has confirmed what decades of other research has found, that these telecom masts do represent a potential health threat to all who come close to them, and rather than just rubber stamping these applications, Wirral Council should be taking seriously its Duty of Care and examining each one and its proximity to life, with the Precautionary Principle at the forefront of their considerations, as recognised in a number of recent court judgements, some mentioned below. With Wirral Council approving these monopoles, who will pay the substantial damages claims of those who are being discriminated against due to their disabilities, when their compromised health is aligned with their exposure to this environmental toxin, especially as this particular health effect is not covered under Public Liability Insurance policies ? 6. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Come 1st September 2025, Wirral Council’s Maladministration in this matter may also breach the threshold for the Failure to Prevent Fraud in The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. We will review the situation at that point. 7. Wirral Council’s Internal Audit Counter Fraud Report. In Wirral Council’s Internal Audit Counter Fraud Report of 22 October 2024, Wirral’s Chief Internal Auditor Mark P Niblock stated: “5.1 Local authorities have a statutory duty to have arrangements in place for the proper administration of their financial affairs under The Local Government Finance Act 1972. That duty includes the prevention, detection and deterrence of fraud and corruption. The Wirral Counter Fraud and Corruption Strategy, Anti Fraud and Corruption Policy and Fraud Response Plan provides a framework for fraud awareness, response and key actions related to improving the Council’s counter fraud and corruption framework. In the absence of an up to date strategy and policies there is a risk that fraud and corruption may not be monitored or be unreported.” 8. Wirral Council Employee’s Code of Conduct. Wirral Council’s behaviour in this matter could also breach its own Employee Code of Conduct, where it states: “6. Anti-fraud and corruption. Fraud is when somebody is deliberately dishonest to secure an unfair or unlawful gain….our anti fraud and corruption policy outlines our collective and individual responsibility to report something if we suspect it might involve fraud or corruption.” 9. Wirral Council Counter Fraud and Corruption Strategy. Wirral Council’s anti fraud and corruption policy splits into 2 appendixes. The Appendix 1 Counter Fraud and Corruption Strategy states: “Chief Executives foreword 1. Members and employees have a responsibility for promoting a culture of good governance by ensuring that effective measures are in place to prevent fraud, corruption and by promptly identifying and reporting potential instances for investigation. In promoting good governance standards Wirral Council aims to create an anti-fraud culture and environment to deter those who may commit fraudulent and corrupt acts and encourage those who suspect such activity to report it promptly. Wirral Council also expects the same level of commitment from all outside individuals and organisations, including partners, contractors and customers, ensuring that they act towards Wirral Council with honesty and integrity. Wirral Council is determined to protect itself from fraud and corruption and will seek to prevent fraud and corruption in all areas of its activities. Where any instances are discovered, Wirral Council will take all action as is necessary to hold perpetrators to account and reduce losses to an absolute minimum. 2.1 The council aims to: Take the strongest possible action against proven perpetrators of fraud. 4.4 The Council expects all of its employees and members to comply with the seven principles of public life in all of its activities and to embrace these principles as the cornerstone of its Counter-Fraud and Corruption Strategy. 5.6 The Council will seek to deter potential fraudsters from committing or attempting to commit fraudulent or corrupt acts by: Acting robustly and decisively when fraud or corruption is suspected and proven. 6.6 The Council is committed to pursuing all possible sanctions for proven cases of fraud and corruption…The Council is committed to pursuing disciplinary, criminal and civil sanctions where there is evidence to support the occurrence of fraud and corruption. 6.7 In all cases of suspected fraud and corruption the Council will take action to minimise the risk of further loss. 6.8 Where fraud or corruption has occurred, management will need to take action to ensure that any control weaknesses which provided the opportunity for this are addressed. Any lessons learnt will be disseminated to relevant staff. 7.3 The Council also recognises that the organisation is exposed to risk from external partners and suppliers and that the reporting of malpractice can be in relation to third parties working for or on behalf of the Council. 9.2 Proven cases of fraud, corruption or other irregularity are subject to the severest sanctions being imposed.” and Appendix 2, the Anti Fraud and Corruption Policy states that: “1.2 The Council expects the highest standard of probity, propriety and conduct from Members and employees. This includes the requirement of those concerned to act lawfully and to comply at all times with Wirral Council’s policies, regulations and procedures. 1.3 The Council also expects the same level of commitment from all outside individuals and organisations, including partners, contractors and customers, ensuring that they act towards Wirral Council with honesty and integrity. 1.4 The Council has a zero tolerance policy to fraud and corruption whether perpetrated by Members, employees, suppliers or customers. Where any instances are discovered, the Council will take all action as is necessary to hold perpetrators to account and reduce losses to an absolute minimum. 4.5 All employees are responsible for ensuring that their conduct complies with the Employee Code of Conduct laid out by the Council, and the seven principles of public life (Appendix 2). Employees have a responsibility to carry out their duties carefully and honestly and to follow the Council’s procedures and guidance. Such diligence will ensure that the Council operates with integrity and in the best interests of the people of Wirral. The Council expects its Members and employees to lead by example in ensuring opposition to fraud and corruption. These responsibilities will be enacted in the following ways: Acting with propriety in the handling and use of official resources and public funds via payment systems, receipts, contracting and grant claims; Conducting themselves in accordance with the seven principles of public life. 6. Conclusion 6.1 The Council takes fraud and corruption extremely seriously and actively seeks to prevent any level of fraud or corrupt act. All cases of actual or suspected fraud or corruption will be vigorously and promptly investigated and appropriate action will be taken.” 10. The Wirral Constitution. The Wirral Constitution states in its Members Code of Conduct: “We represent local residents, work to develop better services and deliver local change. The public have high expectations of us and entrust us to represent our local area ; taking decisions fairly, openly, and transparently. We have both an individual and collective responsibility to meet these expectations by maintaining high standards and demonstrating good conduct, and by challenging behaviour which falls below expectations. General principles of Member Conduct: Everyone in public office at all levels; all who serve the public or deliver public services, including ministers, civil servants, Members and local authority officers; should uphold the Seven Principles of Public Life, also known as the Nolan Principles. Building on these principles, the following general principles have been developed specifically for the role of Member. In accordance with the public trust placed in me, on all occasions: I act with integrity and honesty I act lawfully I treat all persons fairly and with respect; and I lead by example and act in a way that secures public confidence in the role of Member. I impartially exercise my responsibilities in the interests of the local community. I do not improperly seek to confer an advantage, or disadvantage, on any person. I avoid conflicts of interest. I exercise reasonable care and diligence; 10. Pre-Determination or Bias As a Member I: 10.1 Never place myself under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations who might seek to influence me in the performance of my official duties. 10.2 Consider all matters with an open mind and make decisions based upon weighing the best evidence before me, fairly and on merit. However, you must ensure that your integrity is not compromised. You may be pre-disposed to a number of outcomes to a decision, based upon your, philosophy, beliefs or political allegiance (including any application of a Group whip), but this must not predetermine your actions or the outcome of a decision you are to make. You must always remain open to the potential for further evidence or argument to alter any previously expressed or held viewpoint at the time of making your decision. For this reason, particularly in relation to contractual matters or those affecting individuals’ civil rights, it is often best to be cautious about how or if your views are expressed before coming to make a decision.” Wirral’s Constitution also states in its Members Planning Code: “The aim of this Code: to ensure that in the planning process there are no grounds for suggesting that a decision has been biased, partial or not well founded in any way. Your role as a Member of the Planning Authority is to make planning decisions openly, impartially, with sound judgement and for justifiable reasons. You are also a democratically accountable decision-taker who had been elected to provide and pursue policies. Do take into account when approaching a decision that the Principle of Integrity is defined in terms that “Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships”. 3. Fettering Discretion in the Planning Process (natural justice, predisposition and predetermination) Don’t fetter your discretion by approaching the decision with a closed mind. …through your significant personal involvement in preparing or advocating the proposal you will be, or perceived by the public as being, no longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its planning merits. Do remember that your overriding duty is to the whole community not just to the people in your ward and, taking account of the need to make decisions impartially, that you should not improperly favour, or appear to improperly favour, any person, company, group or locality.” After reading the results of the ‘comprehensive’ investigation, it would seem to one with clean hands and clean eyes that Wirral Council are exhibiting ‘Pre-determination and Bias’ in favour of the applicant and/or agent. 11. The Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life. The Seven Nolan Principles of Public Life state that holders of public office must act at all times with: “Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. Integrity – Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships. Objectivity – Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias. Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this. Openness – Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing. Honesty – Holders of public office should be truthful. Leadership – Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.” Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest at all times. 12. The ICNIRP Guidelines 1998, 2010 and 2020. The 1998 and the 2010 ICNIRP guidelines, which were the UK Governments ONLY reference to health and safety, do not cover residents with medical or metal implants. “Compliance with the present guidelines may not necessarily preclude interference with, or effects on, medical devices such as metallic prostheses, cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators, and cochlear implants. Interference with pacemakers may occur at levels below the recommended reference levels. Advice on avoiding these problems is beyond the scope of the present document but is available elsewhere (UNEP/WHO/IRPA 1993).” The most recent 2020 ICNIRP guidelines slightly revised the wording, but not the meaning, and still do not cover residents with medical or metal implants. “The main objective of this publication is to establish guidelines for limiting exposure to EMFs that will provide a high level of protection for all people against substantiated adverse health effects from exposures to both short – and long-term, continuous and discontinuous radiofrequency EMFs. However, some exposure scenarios are defined as outside the scope of these guidelines. Medical procedures may utilize EMFs, and metallic implants may alter or perturb EMFs in the body, which in turn can affect the body both directly (via direct interaction between field and tissue) and indirectly (via an intermediate conducting object). For example, radiofrequency ablation and hyperthermia are both used as medical treatments, and radiofrequency EMFs can indirectly cause harm by unintentionally interfering with active implantable medical devices. Radiofrequency EMFs may also interfere with electrical equipment more generally (i.e., not only implantable medical equipment ), which can affect health indirectly by causing equipment to malfunction. This is referred to as electromagnetic compatibility, and is out-side the scope of these guidelines.” and: “Indirect effects – most health effects considered in non-ionising radiation protection are direct effects. However, health effects can also arise from indirect pathways. For instance they may occur from an electric discharge arising from metallic objects charged by exposure to some types of non-ionising radiation; these types of indirect effects are considered by ICNIRP. Other types are not, for example, heating of metallic objects in the body, such as prostheses, or an influence on the operation of medical devices such as pacemakers. The latter electromagnetic interference effects are of a technical nature and do not fall within the remit of ICNIRP.” ICNIRP also disclaim their own liability for their guidance: “ICNIRP e.V. undertakes all reasonable measures to ensure the reliability of the 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.” The 27 year old inadequate, obsolete and outdated ICNIRP safety guidelines that the government desperately cling onto were based on a 6 minute exposure, and are now based upon a 30 minute exposure, whilst the people living close to these masts endure up to 24 hours exposure per day, up to 365 days per year, and are based on the concept of taking an ‘average’ measurement and not taking into account spikes of intensity that could breach a suggested guideline. The guidelines only take into account thermal / heating effects, failing to acknowledge any short and long term cellular and biological damage from this almost constant involuntary exposure to wireless non ionising radiation. There are proven cumulative harmful effects of human exposure to this environmental toxin. The legendary late Russian Professor Yuri Grigoriev, who was a member and former chair of the Russian National Committee of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection said: “The effects of non ionising radiation are the same as ionising radiation, in slow motion.” Being that electrical interference with various medical implants and devices is outside the scope of the ICNIRP guidelines, did the applicant/agent or Wirral Council carry out any Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) on the children present at The Observatory School in Bidston ‘near’ to the Hoylake Road mast in order to establish whether any of the children had any of these implants or devices ? What about the Co-op Academy Portland on Laird Street, 240 metres or so from the Laird Street mast ? Of the 150 or so masts we have located on the Wirral, we estimate over 70 of them are located and functioning within 300 metres of a school. Consequently, how many children at school in Wirral are currently being placed at an un- necessary risk of involuntary exposure to non ionising radiation for up to 6 hours per day, 5 days per week, and are not under the protective cover of the only guideline driven safety measurement provided by the UK government and Wirral Council, due to their disability ? Surely this would have been the one of the purposes of the consultations required by the NPPF. The Site Specific Supplementary Information (SSSI) for the Hoylake Road proposal states: “Location of site in relation to school/college: The proposed location does appear to be within 300m of an education centre. The Observatory School will be informed regarding this proposal. Outline of consultation carried out with school/college: Prior consultation carried out. Summary of outcome/Main issues raised: N/A” It seems that at present merely informing the school of the proposal is sufficient, and not informing them of the risks that the children will face by attending school when the mast is functional. The school is an educational unit for children with various special needs. This means that many of the children may have medical or metal electrical implants. The mast has been installed approximately 113 metres from the perimeter of the school in Bidston. Maybe as Mr Lacey feels that 113 metres does not constitute ‘near,’ this will not be a problem, but knowing what we know, and have done our best to communicate, there is no way we would be happy for our vulnerable children to attend a school so close to a device that has the potential capacity to do what these masts can do, for 35 hours a week, over a number of years. Are the parents of children with these implants aware of the effects of the proximity of their children to the radiation emitting device on Hoylake Road on the Tesco roundabout, as well as their proximity to the powerful commercial routers that all schools now utilise, and the multitude of devices surrounding them, and the potential cumulative harms resulting from up to 35 hours per week exposure ? Being that the school is so near to the radiation emitting mast, and being that ICNIRP’s own guidance states that medical and metal implants are outside the scope the guidelines, it would seem like those questions really should have been asked. That they weren’t shows a flagrant lack of the Duty of Care to Wirral’s children that Wirral Council should have shown and yet neglected to show. That is, after all, what this issue is all about. The safe distance between people, especially children, and powerful radiation emitting transmitters. Children’s bodies are much more vulnerable to the gradual and cumulative toxic damage that radiation causes to their bodies when they are exposed to it over a long period of time. Wirral Council also failed to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment on the proximity of the newly installed mast at Laird Street, with it being located approximately 50 metres from The Miriam Health Centre on Laird Street. The health centre has multiple electrical machines and devices related to improving the health of its patients, and many of those patients also have implanted devices in their bodies that they rely upon to survive. All of this electrical equipment is being put at risk of malfunctioning being so close to a powerful 5G mast emitting ‘radio waves.’ The NPPF covers this in chapter 10: “121. Local planning authorities should not impose a ban on new electronic communications development in certain areas, impose blanket Article 4 directions over a wide area or a wide range of electronic communications development, or insist on minimum distances between new electronic communications development and existing development. They should ensure that: (a) they have 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.” Do Wirral Council have the evidence to demonstrate that 5G masts are not expected to cause significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment, including disabled peoples electrical medical devices which are not covered under the guidelines, to hand ? 13. Steven Thomas vs Cheltenham Borough Council – 13 March 2025. The recent Cardiff High Court case with Steven Thomas vs Cheltenham Borough Council on 13 March 2025, had the local authority un-successfully appealing against an earlier Judge Jarman ruling, in which he had ruled that Cheltenham Council had failed in not protecting residents who were excluded from the ICNIRP guidance. The original ruling recognised councils material considerations and responsibilities to local residents who may have medical or metal implants or devices, as it has been established that the ICNIRP guidelines (the only benchmark for public safety used by the authorities) does not cover these vulnerable people. Judge Jarman said: “The failure on the part of the authority to grapple with potential impacts on medical implants was, in my judgement, an error and this ground succeeds.” The upheld judgement should have significant repercussions for councils across the country, including Wirral Council, who have consistently failed to protect Wirral’s vulnerable residents from day one, of not only the roll-out of 5G, but also from the previous generations, where these masts have been approved to be installed close to where people live, work and play. After Cheltenham Council’s recent unsuccessful appeal, Judges Jackson, Asplin and Andrews stated: “The authority’s failure to address potential impacts on medical implants was an error, as EMF’s could interfere with the function of such implants. Compliance with ICNIRP Guidelines therefore tells one nothing about the specific risk of harm which may potentially be caused by EMF’s unintentionally interfering with active implantable medical devices. That risk is recognised in the Guidelines, but deliberately not addressed in them.” The case also highlighted that the EEEC 2018 has been confirmed as being part of Adopted Law post Brexit, which means that all council’s are now classed as Competent Authorities and must take into account the provisions of the EECC regarding Risk Assessment and the latest scientific evidence of potential harms. 14. Carol Springgay vs Brighton and Hove City Council Judicial Review – 2 November 2021. The Fishersgate mast Judicial Review Judgement by Judge Holgate quashed Brighton and Hove City Council’s 30 July 2021 approval of a 15 metre monopole ‘near’ a primary school in Portslade. Judge Holgate said regarding the case, numbered BH2021/01639: “2. The grounds for judicial review are: (i) the Council unlawfully determined that the highway safety implications of the cabinets and the concerns expressed by the Council’s highways team were not a relevant consideration; (ii) 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; and (iii) the Council failed to consider whether the facility could be sited on an existing building or structure, the Interested Party having failed to provide any evidence on that matter. 3. For these reasons the decision was unlawful and should be quashed.” A legal opinion was sought and Richard Harwood KC said: “Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires a planing authority to have regard to the development plan and other material considerations when determining a planning application. The General Permitted Development Order grants permission (article 3(1)) subject in some cases to a condition requiring prior approval of certain matters. In such a case, the prior approval application is not an application for planning permission so section 70 does not apply. However, the council is still obliged to take into account relevant considerations when determining a prior approval application, that being planning matters relevant to the details for which prior approval is required. This would also include relevant local or national policy. The only difference to section 70(2) is that the presumption in favour of the development plan (in s38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) does not apply. It must be stressed, however, that unlike statutory instruments, policy statements are not legally binding upon local planning authorities. Whilst the merits of the policy (or the merits of its application) cannot be reviewed by the courts the actual application or interpretation of policy can. Consequently, the local planning authority are entitled to adopt a policy and apply it, but are not entitled to fetter their discretion under section 70(2) or section 38(6). This is because ‘other material considerations’ may point in different directions.” Brighton and Hove City Council backed down and the Consent Order was authorised, with the council paying more than £13,000 in costs. https://rfinfo.co.uk/fishersgate-mast-in-brighton-quashed-at-judicial-review/ 15. The National Planning Policy Framework. Planning officers seem to be working under the misapprehension that they must obey the dictates of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which instructs them to: “123. Local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.” The belief of officers and councillors that they must follow the NPPF and ICNIRP guidance and not take into account any health concerns the local population may have because it is law, is a false one. It is policy, not law. The word ‘should’ precedes the advice, not the word ‘must,’ indicating a choice, and not a compulsion. The NPPF works on the basis that all decisions made by officers should be based upon the pursuit of sustainable development. If officers were serious about that pursuit, no application for 5G technology would ever be approved, as 5G is the antithesis of sustainable development with its power hungry hardware and its radiating of the environment and gradual cumulative poisoning of all life forms. This document is purely guidance and advice. This was confirmed by Lord Gill in the Supreme Court on 10 May 2017 where he reprimanded Suffolk Coastal District Council for treating the Framework as law: “The guidance given by the framework (the NPPF) is not to be interpreted as if it were a statute. It’s purpose is to express general principles on which decision makers are to proceed in pursuit of sustainable development.” 16. Admission of evidence as to the harms of the technology. A 2004 Patent application from Swiss telecom giant Swisscom revealed a statement made by the industry about the carcinogenicity of telecom mast technology: “The influence of electrosmog on the human body is a known problem. The health risk from mobile radio transmitters, handys and DECT telephones has been an explosive subject among the general public at least since the enormous breakthrough in mobile phone radio technology in the 1990’s. The risk of damage to health through electrosmog has also become better understood as a result of more recent and improved studies. When, for example, human blood cells are irradiated with electromagnetic fields, clear damage to hereditary material has been demonstrated and there have been indications of an increased cancer risk. Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to chromosomal instability. These findings indicate that the genotoxic effect of electromagnetic radiation is elicited via a non-thermal pathway. Moreover aneuploidy is to be considered as a known phenomenom in the increase of cancer risk. Thus it has been possible to show that mobile radio radiation can cause damage to genetic material, in particular in human white blood cells, whereby both the DNA itself is damaged and the number of chromosomes changed. This mutation can consequently lead to increased cancer risk. In particular, it could also be shown that this destruction is not dependent upon temperature increases, ie. is non-thermal.” https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004075583A1/en So we have telecom industry statements within a patent application from 21 years ago confirming that telecoms technology has the potential to cause cancer in humans and should be more accurately classed as unsustainable development. 17. Information provided by the Applicants within the applications. Additionally, within the Site Specific Supplementary Information form (SSSI) for all of the applications in question, it is stated by the applicant: “Public compliance is determined by mathematical calculation and implemented by careful location of antennas, access restrictions and/or barriers and signage as necessary. Members of the public cannot unknowingly enter areas close to the antennas where exposure may exceed the relevant guidelines.” This area is known as the Exclusion Zone. These zones vary in size depending on the power output at any given moment, but can range up to a diameter of 115 metres around a mast at 1/100th power of what ICNIRP deem to be safe ! We have seen one such document which refers to the public exclusion zone as being a 103.9 metre diameter, ie 51.95 metres radius all around the mast. The Borough Road / Balls Road East mast is approximately 25 metres from a block of residential flats, which is likely to be within the Exclusion Zone where ‘Members of the public cannot unknowingly enter areas close to the antennas where exposure may exceed the relevant guidelines.’ Those residents are being placed at an un-necessary risk of harm due to Wirral Council not properly assessing their environment with an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA.) It is not the only one ! Christer Törnevik, a senior expert at the EMF and Health Ericsson Research Centre in Stockholm, Sweden stated in a study about the exclusion zones: “EMF compliance may be a challenge for 5G massive MIMO sites if assuming theoretical maximum power for all beams” and: “The size of exclusion zones makes 5G network roll-out a major problem or impossible.” We understand that the science behind this technology is complicated and outside the knowledge of most people, including ourselves and Wirral Council’s planning officers. This should ensure expert advice being sought in each and every application due to the potential dangers of making a misjudgement with harmful radiation exposures being a potential scenario. We also understand that should the masts emit enough beams of maximum intensity, it would place anyone within the exclusion zone at risk of over exposure and an undetermined degree of microwave radiation poisoning. This places a huge responsibility on the positioning of clear signage and barriers around each mast with this capability. There is no signage or barriers located in the vicinity of any of the 5G masts installed in Wirral including the Laird Street, Hoylake Road and Arrowe Park Road installations, featured in this communication. According to ICNIRP calculations, there are 2 different sized exclusion zones, one is unsafe for the general public, and the other is only safe for workers in this field wearing protective clothing, for whom allegedly, the effects of EMF’s should have been mitigated following Health and Safety risk assessments at work. The public should not go inside either zone. Bizarrely, councils do not obtain drawings of these public exclusion zones for any masts. Such zones are not required to be considered in the ICNIRP guidelines, the National Planning Policy Framework or the General Permitted Development Order 2015. Unbelievably, council verification of these zones is impossible as these drawings are withheld from the planning office, as seen from the comment on one of the drawing we have seen from an applicant: “Note: any drawings showing ICNIRP zones must NOT be sent to the site providers, site providers’ agents or planning departments.” This document should be one of the first to be analysed by planning officers when considering applications, and the appropriate permanent signage and barriers should also be a top priority as it is a very important public safety issue, and the fact that it is being bypassed entirely is negligence of the highest order. Are the public being placed at risk of serious harm due to a lack of warning signs about exposure to radiation and the precise locations of the exclusion zones to avoid, and also masts being placed where schools and residences are actually within these zones ? How can members of the public, especially those people wearing implantable electrical devices mentioned in point number 12, avoid entering an exclusion zone, where they may be exposed to excessive and harmful doses of radiation, if it is not signposted and have barriers erected ? Wirral Council are placing Wirral’s population in danger by not ensuring these restricted exclusion zones are clearly signposted and understood. 18. Public Liability Insurance indemnification. Insurance is one of the few industries that is more powerful than the mobile phone industry. Lloyds, a world leader in specialist risk insurance and re-insurance, underwrites many kinds of risks for the dominant industries on earth – IT, defence, aviation, shipping, energy and manufacturing, have placed exclusions in their policies to not cover damages caused by the pathological effects of electro magnetic radiation. Lloyd’s syndicates now refuse to cover claims linked with RF Radiation. There are currently no insurers in the world who will cover health effects from wireless technology. Lloyds said in 2010: “The danger with EMF is that like asbestos, the exposure insurers face is underestimated and could grow exponentially and be with us for many years.” In 2013, Swiss Re said: “Over the last decade, the spread of wireless devices has accelerated enormously. This development has increased exposure..If a direct link to health effects were established, it would open the doors for new claims and could ultimately lead to very large losses.” Then in 2014, they warned of large losses from the unforeseen consequences of exposure to electromagnetic fields, placing EMF’s in the ‘High’ potential impact zone. Swiss Re continued in 2019: “To allow for a functional network coverage and increased capacity overall, more antennas will be needed, including acceptance of higher levels of electromagnetic radiation. In some jurisdictions, the rise of threshold values will require legal adaptation. Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence…Other concerns are focused on cyber exposures, which increase with the wider scope of 5G wireless attack surfaces. Traditionally IoT devices have poor security features. Moreover, hackers can also exploit 5G speed and volume, meaning that more data can be stolen much quicker.” Bermuda Re cited cell phones as a potential cause of ‘the next asbestos’ which had such catastrophic results for the industry in the 1980’s. The Austrian insurance company AUVA commissioned experts to assess biological effects of mobile phone radiation. Non thermal effects were observed, “The demonstrated effects should not even have occurred, according to the strictly thermal interaction mechanism that would have been covered by current exposure guidelines.” Having been asked multiple times by ourselves and others, Wirral Council have thus far refused to be clear on whether they are insured against claims of harm to health caused by radiation from this technology. Wandsworth Borough Council in London confirmed in an FOI request that their insurer has said that they are not covered: “Request for Information WBC-FOI-05223 (Wandsworth Borough Council) 5. Please would the Council send me the exact clause in their public liability insurance that shows that the Council is indemnified against claims on the Council for harm caused by emf radiation. The current opinion of the Council’s incumbent insurer is that such claims would not be covered under the Council’s liability policy.” Public Health England (PHE) now United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA) solicitors DLA Piper made clear that any public body that relies on ICNIRP becomes liable, and cannot defer to the guidance or the issuer of the guidance. MP Wera Hobhouse cited this in a letter to the government 27 February 2020: “I am writing to seek clarification from the government on liability for health risks relating to the 5G rollout, in particular the issue of indemnity for public bodies charged with safeguarding and public health… The above shows that 5G health effects are uninsurable and at the same time recognised by re-insurers as a high impact risk with regard to future litigation. Members of the campaign group Stop 5G Bath have received a letter from PHE’s own solicitors DLA Piper, dated 8 August 2019, which exempts PHE from all liability in the event of future legal action relating to health effects from 5G if their guidance should turn out to be incorrect or misleading. In the letter they state: ‘A public body must determine how much weight to put on the PHE guidance. Equally that body must determine what other evidence from your client or other members of the public or interested parties to consider in making any decision. If it be alleged that a public body now or in the future acted unlawfully in placing reliance on the guidance, that cannot retrospectively taint the guidance with illegality.’ The MP then continued: “PHE’s lawyers advise public bodies to balance PHE’s guidance with evidence from other sources i.e. not only from ICNIRP. This contradicts the government’s own planning regulations which require local authorities to adhere strictly to ICNIRP’s guidelines. This gives no choice to public bodies about accepting a potentially catastrophic risk.” Verizon, the large US based telecom multi national corporation with offices in the UK, state that they make a provision for such potential health claims in their 2023 statutory submission: “We are subject to a substantial amount of litigation, which could require us to pay significant damages for settlements. In addition, our wireless business also faces personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits relating to alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition, we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.” 19. World Health Organisation (WHO) – Classification of possible carcinogenicity. In Lyon, France on 31 May 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) IARC (International Agency for Research On Cancer) classified Radio Frequency Electro Magnetic Fields as a Group 2B ‘possible carcinogen’ to humans, based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer. There was pressure building from within the genuine scientific circles to upgrade the classification to either a Group 2A ‘probable carcinogen’ or even a Group 1 ‘carcinogenic to humans.’ “The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed the possibility that these exposures might induce long term health effects, in particular an increased risk for cancer. This has relevance for public health, particularly for users of mobile phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children. The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: – occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves; – environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wireless telecommunication; and – personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones. Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that ‘the evidence, while still accumulati ng, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.’ ” https://www.iarc.who.int›wp-content › uploads › 2018 › 07 › pr208_E.pdf That was 2011. 2 days ago as we write this, a meta-study, partly funded by the WHO entitled ‘The effect of exposure to radio frequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies,’ was released 25 April 2025, and stated: “Final conclusions: The findings of this systematic review indicate that there is evidence that RF EMF exposure increases the incidence of cancer in experimental animals with the CoE being strongest for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas.” The review also found moderate certainty of evidence of an increased risk of rare tumours in the adrenal glands and in the liver. Although the study states that extrapolating the level of human risk of cancer from animal studies can be complex, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) has said in its press release: “Notably, the same types of tumours have also been observed in human studies, adding significant confidence that the associations observed in human studies are real.” The ICBE-EMF is an independent ‘international consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields including wireless RF radiation.’ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025002338 20. Misconduct in Public Office. Misconduct in Public Office is a common law offence that can only be tried on indictment. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence concerns serious wilful abuse or neglect of the power or responsibilities of the public office held with reference to the discharge of their statutory obligations. The offence of misconduct in public office applies generally to every person who is appointed to discharge a public duty and who receives compensation in whatever form – salary, wage, expenses and the like. There must be a direct link between the misconduct and an abuse of those powers or responsibilities. A public officer acting as such wilfully neglects to perform their duty and/or wilfully misconducts themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification. The following have been held to be public officers: judges, magistrates, police constables, elected officials (MPs, councillors) civil servants (including local authority officers.) The offence is divided into 3 categories: Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance, which are all types of failure to discharge public duties and obligations existing by common law, custom or statute. Malfeasance is not relevant to the issues we are discussing. Misfeasance possibly occurred but would be difficult to prove, in that the actor does not have the intent to harm, but the harm comes through the actor’s neglect, irresponsibility or negligence. Wirral Councils actions to date regarding the planning processes for 5G could more readily be construed as Nonfeasance. Nonfeasance is the failure to act when there is a duty to do so, which results in harm or damages to persons or property, wilfully or in neglect. An act of nonfeasance can result in liability if (i) the actor owed a duty of care toward the injured person, (ii) the actor failed to act on that duty, and (iii) the failure to act resulted in injury, especially with regard to the attempted exploitation of vulnerable disabled people and the risks associated with the effects of electro magnetic fields from telecom masts on their electrical implants such as pacemakers.Paul Cardinabout.me/paul.cardin | |
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Amazon link
Wirral In It Together 