There was no democracy in the decision to place a potentially cancerous 5G tower on top of our residential block flat. The long term effects of EMF radiation used to power 5G signal has not been researched enough, and if there had been a vote, the residents of Addey House, would have entirely disapproved. Please halt this project, or continue it on a building that is not occupied by humans.
This ePetition ran from 28/02/2024 to 26/08/2024 and has now finished.
4 people signed this ePetition.
The Council is aware that WHP Telecoms (acting on behalf of Cornerstone) are seeking to replace the existing telecoms equipment at Addey House. We understand the works to initially comprise an upgrade to 5G networks including the installation of 3 replacement antennas and 2 dishes to be installed at roof level. The existing equipment cabin is to be utilised.
WHP telecom have subsequently confirmed by email that the works have been completed as of 8 March 2024 with 3 replacement antennas installed, but the 2 dishes were not installed.
The installation or replacement of telecoms equipment is a very complex matter and do not always require planning permission. Part 16, Class A of the General Permitted Development Order gives telecommunication operators permitted development rights in certain cases subject to complying to certain limitations and conditions.
The General Permitted Development Order is set by the Government and is national legislation.
There are 3 main routes for telecommunications development, which I believe will be helpful to summarise below:
Permitted Development – Regulation 5 notification as required by The Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 Permitted development rights are being used – a description and location of the equipment should be provided to the local planning authority via a Regulation 5 notification.
One calendar month’s notice to the local planning authority should be given prior to the installation of any electronic communications equipment. Comments must be provided in one calendar month, including detail of any conditions it wishes to impose (such as colour of equipment).
Note – the developer is not obliged to comply with those conditions if they consider them unreasonable. The telecommunications operator may consult with the community.
There is no requirement for the local planning authority to carry out public consultation.
Prior Approval
Development is ‘permitted’, but prior approval is
required so an application as to whether prior approval is required
must be submitted to the local planning authority to give their
views on siting and appearance only. The local planning authority
can only consider siting and appearance and a decision must be
issued in 56 days from the received date of the application.
If a decision is issued beyond 56 days, the development is automatically granted. The telecommunications operator may consult with the community.
The local planning authority will formally consult the community
in accordance with our SCI.
Full planning permission An application for planning permission is
submitted as the development does not benefit from permitted
development. The local planning authority can consider all material
planning matters, and a decision should be issued within 8 weeks.
The telecom operator may consult with the community.
The local planning authority will formally consult the community in accordance with our SCI.
Permitted development
Telecommunication equipment can be carried out under permitted
development subject that the new equipment does not exceed 25m in
height on ‘unprotected land’ (outside conservation
areas). This includes rooftop development.
Prior approval
Prior approval is only required if the replacement
telecommunications equipment proposed exceeds the 25m permitted
development height requirement and is less than 30m in height.
Prior approval is also required for the installation of a new mast less than 30m in height on unprotected land (25m on protected land).
Planning permission
The telecommunications operator must apply for full planning
permission if the new telecommunication equipment does not meet the
requirements of permitted development or prior approval.
The local planning authority cannot insist an application for full planning permission is submitted if the works are permitted development or if prior approval is required. Nor can it insist on public consultation on behalf of the telecoms operator.
WHP Telecom has confirmed they intend on using their permitted development rights for the replacement of existing rooftop equipment at Addey House. This means that no formal application for planning permission or prior approval will be submitted to the local planning authority. As such the permitted development route chosen by WHP Telecom and Cornerstone means that no public consultation and no formal Council decision is required. This is a legally sound route, although I appreciate this may be concerning to you.
The Regulation 5 notification (as set out in the table above) must be submitted to the Council at least on month prior to any installation of telecoms equipment. This is a formal requirement of the Electronic Communications Code 2003. This provides Councils to make comment and impose conditions such as the colour of cabinets (at street level). We are unable to oppose the installation in general terms, and there is no legal requirement or mechanism for the Telecoms operator/ developer to take account of comments or conditions. The Regulation 5 was submitted on the 8 September 2022, thereby meeting the ‘at least one month prior’ regulation.
I appreciate this is a complex process and one which you will find
frustrating, and I too share the concern of our limited ability to
influence a Telecoms operators’ decision or how they engage
with local communities. However, I must also advise, that the
Government expect local authorities to be supportive of new and
upgraded telecoms equipment. Specially the National Planning Policy
Framework (2023), which is the highest strategic level policy
framework in England states in paragraph 118 that:
‘Advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being’. Planning policies and decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications equipment, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G’).
Your petition specifically raises concerns around health, citing that not enough research has been conducted into the long-term effects of radiation. Whilst I understand there is personal and resident concern on this matter, local authorities are not able to consider health implications in telecom planning decisions. The Government’s national planning practice guidance states that
‘local planning authorities must determine application on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for electronic communications system or set health guidelines different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure’.
Telecom operators are required to comply with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards.
The telecoms process and legislative framework is complex and I
hope this response has been able to provide some clarity and the
limitations that the Council has. I hope that we have provided you
with a detailed answer to your request, and whilst I appreciate it
may not be the answers you were hoping for and I am sorry that you
may be disappointed, I trust the above has clarified
Council’s position.