Parents who won legal fight against 5G mast prepare for round two

Posted On 21 Nov 2022 at 1:41 pm


Parents who raised thousands of pounds to legally block a new 5G mast near a school are now gearing up to fight a new set of plans.

The Stop 5G Mast by St Peters School campaign group raised more than £12,000 to launch a judicial review against Brighton and Hove City Council’s approval last year of a 15m mast in Fishersgate Terrace.

The review succeeded, on the grounds the council had not taken into account the concerns of its own highways department.

But now a new planning application has been submitted in exactly the same location, with more detailed drawings showing how much cabinets at the base of the mobile phone mast would reduce motorists’ visibility.

The previous application, by CK Hutchinson Networks which operates the Three Network, attracted dozens of complaints from councillors and the public about overdevelopment, visual impact, and proximity to St Peter’s Community School.

Spacewords Brighton

Parent Carol Springgay, who launched the crowdfunder, said the group was now preparing to oppose the mast as the new application is still for a site only 27m away from school buildings.

The judicial review also found the ICNIRP certificate, which certifies radiation compliance, was inadequate, and that the siting of the mast on an existing building or structure should have been considered.

The applicant, CK Hutchison Networks, has included a ICNIRP certificate and details of other sites it has looked at which are not suitable.

The 2021 proposal originally suggested a 20 meter pole but this was reduced to a 15 meter pole after 135 public objections, including from Hove MP Peter Kyle.

After the plans were amended, another 67 letters were received objecting to the proposal, including from Councillors Alan Robins and Les Hamilton.

One letter was received in support of the proposal, saying that 5G connectivity was needed in the area.

A Three spokesperson said: “Access to 5G has a vital role to play in boosting local economies like Portslade, helping residents and businesses get faster and more reliable network coverage.

“This is why we’re working with the Brighton and Hove City Council to roll out the UK’s fastest 5G network so that we can keep everyone connected both now and in the future.

“While we try to keep mast sites as unobtrusive as possible, they do need to be situated near to where people will be using the service and, in many cases, in precise locations to ensure the widest breadth of coverage.

“We have carried out extensive searches and evaluated a wide range of options before submitting the planning application.”

You can find the full planning application by searching for BH2022/03457 on the council’s planning portal.

  1. Eileen OConnor Reply

    I am deeply concerned for the residents and children who live, work, and attend the local school and hope the parents stop the threat of this mast again.

    I can assure you from personal experience that the detrimental impacts from this form of radiation are profoundly serious and real. I suffered with breast cancer in 2001 after living 100m from a phone mast in
    Wishaw, Sutton Coldfield and led the campaign against the mast after discovering an illness/cancer cluster surrounding the mast.

    I originally started the radiation campaign in Sutton Coldfield in 2002 with a grassroots group called SCRAM – Seriously Concerned Residents Against Masts. I have since campaigned for 20 years. I am the
    Director and Co-founder for the UK EM Radiation Research Trust charity.

    Please visit our charity website and also download the latest petition against 5G along with letters of objection against masts.

    https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Petition-Against-5G-Mast-Why-is-5G-Bad-2.pdf

    • Peter Challis Reply

      Thanks Eileen – do you live in this area of are you just spreading your scaremongering misinformation from Wishaw?

      I see you have blamed your breast cancer, and every other medical episode in your village, on the mobile phone tower installed in 2014, well before the 5g rollout started.

      As the article states “there is no statistical evidence to support the claim of a cancer cluster in Wishaw”.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/westmidlands/series6/phone_masts.shtml

      • Eileen OConnor Reply

        Radiofrequency signals were classified as a possible human carcinogen in 2011 by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
        I would like to reinforce the fact that members of IARC with collective judgment found scientific consensus in reaching this decision, the vote was nearly unanimous: 29 to 1. The evidence of increased cancer risks has since been strengthened by further human studies, as well as toxicology studies in animals, which demonstrated clear evidence of tumours. The $30 million US National Toxicology Program (NTP) RF studies and the Italian Ramazzini Institute ten-year research project both found clear evidence of malignant tumours. Two different institutes with laboratories in different countries, totally independent of each other and both producing parallel consistent findings, reinforces the validity of these ground-breaking animal studies. An external peer-review panel of eleven scientists complimented the methodology of the NTP study and concluded that the results showed clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. Many doctors and scientists are now calling for an urgent upgrade to the classification of RF – EMF from 2B to Group 1 (Known Carcinogen), the same category as tobacco. Dr Hardell stated unequivocally: “The agent is carcinogenic to humans.”

        5G IS NOT STAND ALONE – it will operate and interface with other (including 3G and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles and more.” This powerful letter is available to download via the Environmental Health Trust (EHT): https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Prof-Antony-B-Miller-5g-Statement-for-Guernsey.pdf

        Visit our website for more information.

        Eileen O’Connor
        Charity Director for the EM Radiation Research Trust
        Website address: https://www.radiationresearch.org/

        • Peter Challis Reply

          Thank you for your pre-prepared diatribe of cherry-picked misinformation.

          May I humbly suggest that you extend you education as to what frequencies are used by mobile phone masts and how this differs from dangerous ionising EMFs such as X-rays, Gamma rays, and some UV.

          Those being used by 5g are similar to those used by WiFi and those freed up from Freeview and your will have been bathed by that for decades.

          As it seems your breast cancer has left you paranoid about any EMF, may I suggest you wrap your head in tinfoil and install a Faraday cage at home to protect you from all possible sources including radio and TV receivers and transmitters, satellite broadcasts, Bluetooth devices, WiFi, and microwave cookers. Perhaps also consider avoiding all RFID devices including contact less credit cards.

          The WHO’s main concern seems to be from VLF (50-60hz) mains power signals so perhaps remove all electricity from your house as well.

          You are obviously unlikely to trust governments, manufacturers, or mobile phone service providers, but perhaps see what the UK government says.

          https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phone-base-stations-radio-waves-and-health/mobile-phone-base-stations-radio-waves-and-health

        • Peter Challis Reply

          You might also read this that includes updated WHO recommendations from 2020 rather than your relying on old information to spread fear unnecessarily 😊

          https://www.healthline.com/health/emf#levels

  2. Mark Reply

    If they dont want a mast don’t give them a mask. Just wait till they can’t access the internet then charge them to install one.

  3. Eileen OConnor Reply

    Let’s pay attention to the law regarding legal decisions.

    Important recent legal developments The case, EAM v East Sussex County Council (Special educational needs) features a child who suffers electrosensitivity. Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs found that the child should be considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010, and she required an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP). This groundbreaking legal decision is significant as it would be difficult for Birmingham City Council to shield children from exposure to radiation from a phone mast near a school should a child go on to develop or suffer with electrosensitivity because of exposure to radiation from the mast.
    https://phiremedical.org/education-health-care-plan-ehcp-awarded-aug-2022-for-uk-child-on-the-basis-of-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-ehs/

    In addition, The Secretary of State is to be challenged in the Court of Appeal on failure to give adequate information to the public about the risks of 5G and to explain the absence of a process for investigation of any adverse health effects. Michael Mansfield QC, Philip Rule and Lorna Hackett of Hackett & Dabbs LLP represent the claimants. The Court of Appeal has granted permission on two grounds concerning: 1. The failure to provide adequate or effective information to the public about the risks and how, if it be possible, it might be possible for individuals to avoid or minimise the risks; 2. (a) The failure to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for not establishing a process to investigate and establish the adverse health effects and risks of adverse health effects from 5G technology and/or for discounting the risks presented by the evidence available; and/or (b) failure to meet the requirements of transparency and openness required of a public body. These grounds advance a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations to protect human life, health, and dignity, required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case has been sent back to the Administrative Court.
    https://actionagainst5g.org/legal-case

    Recently, a German court has clarified in a lawsuit that property owners who rent space for base stations and mobile towers assume responsibility for health consequences of the activity. Although the radiation is lower than the relevant reference values from the authorities, this does not mean that the property owner is not responsible for negative health consequences. The same responsibility principles should also apply in the UK
    https://www.emfacts.com/2022/07/german-court-finds-property-owners-can-be-liable-for-health-impacts-from-base-station-antennas-on-their-property/

    In June 2022, a 59-year-old UK social worker won ‘early ill health retirement’ for disabling ‘Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS): In relation to EHS, the Independent Registered Medical Practitioner (IRMP) report concludes: “Mrs. Burns has a medical condition that renders her permanently incapable of undertaking any gainful work. There currently are no treatments available for her condition; avoidance of emissions is the only way to significantly reduce her symptoms.” Whilst such emissions were historically presumed to be biologically inert and are still purported to be safe by many to this day, there is now highly credible evidence to the contrary.
    https://phiremedical.org/59-year-old-social-worker-wins-early-ill-health-retirement-for-disabling-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-ehs/

    Here in the UK, a landmark legal ruling in November 2021 took place at the Planning Court, Queen’s Bench Division, High Court of Justice, London with campaigners successfully claiming against Brighton and Hove Council with Hutchison 3G as the interested party. The Honourable Mr Justice Holgate overturned the local authority approval for the 5G mast to be sited close to a primary school. The ruling found that the Council “failed to address the health impacts” of the mast. The Council was ordered to pay the claimants costs to the agreed sum of £13,340. This finding has significant implications for all councils dealing with 5G applications, it means there is a legal responsibility to investigate effects on health. The ruling highlighted the fact that the council failed to address health impacts of the proposed mast and to obtain evidence of the assessment of the proximity to the school. The case also states the council unlawfully determined that the highway safety implications of the cabinets and the concerns expressed by the council’s highway team. Sitting and appearance, are also still a ‘material planning consideration’ under prior approval and must be given attention.
    https://rfinfo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Consent-Order-02.11.21.pdf

    The UK ICNIRP guidelines along with the US guidelines are outdated and obsolete and are obviously not protecting public health. On Friday 13th August 2021 in the USA Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense and the Environmental Health Trust successfully sued the FCC in a historic lawsuit against the FCC for ignoring 11,000 pages of scientific and medical evidence showing biological effects, so we can no longer rely on industry assurances of safety.
    https://ehtrust.org/environmental-health-trust-et-al-v-fcc-key-documents/

    More information regarding legal decisions are available here: https://www.radiationresearch.org/category/legal/

    • Peter Challis Reply

      Thanks Eileen – I see you totally ignored the links I provided and carry on spreading misinformation.

      If you had read them this realise that as long as EMF is below defined safety limits there is no risk.

      Looks like you are just totally ignorant of the science, fear all EMF no matter what the level, and desperately search for naive, gullible, individuals to support your beliefs.

      I’d recommend anyone with an iota of scientific knowledge to look at your web site https://www.radiationresearch.org/ and have a good chuckle. I see you also fear smart meters 🙄

  4. Eileen OConnor Reply

    You obviously didn’t view the information regarding the successful legal decisions. The courts in a number of countries reviewed arguments from both sides of this debate and obviously dismissed Industry claims of safety. Here is the link to the legal section: https://www.radiationresearch.org/category/legal/

    The public are currently left with no option other than seeking justice via the courts and this erodes trust in the Government and public officials and adds more and more damage to the reputation of ICNIRP, industry supported scientists and industry. It’s time for the Government to listen to public concern on this issue and to protect public and environmental health first.

    The so-called “safety” limits are irrelevant because they only protect against acute thermal effects from very short and intense exposure. ICNIRP is only concerned whether this form of radiation causes burns, heatstroke, or shocks. Many doctors and scientists are raising concerns about the biological effects associated with nonthermal frequencies, pulsations, and other signalling characteristics. There is a large body of science showing non-thermal biological and health effects from RFR exposure. The general public’s concern is related to long term 24/7 exposure to RF radiation and concerns for health such as cancer, immune suppression, neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS, behavioural problems, learning disabilities, electrosensitivity symptoms and infertility.

    A new peer-reviewed paper on October 18, 2022, presented a scientific case for revision of the ICNIRP limits. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) challenged the safety of current wireless exposure limits to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and is calling for an independent evaluation. This new paper warns about the risks of exposure to radiation from 5G technology and claims that existing exposure limits for wireless radiation are inadequate, outdated, and harmful to human health and wildlife. The ICBE-EMF group reports that exposure limits for RF radiation set by ICNIRP and the FCC are based on invalid assumptions and outdated science. ICBE-EMF group called for a moratorium on 5G. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9

    Even Professor Jim Lin from the University of Illinois recently called the precautionary principle of ALARA – as low as reasonably achievable should be adopted as a strategy for RF health and safety protection. His paper highlights the fact that there are consistent indications from epidemiological studies and animal investigations that RF exposure is probably carcinogenic to humans. Jim Lin is an ex-ICNIRP commissioner for 12 years from (2004-2016) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1042478/full

    It’s worth noting that the $21 billion reinsurance company Swiss Re Group, which is one of the world’s leading reinsurance providers, rated 5G as a “high impact” liability risk, citing concerns about its biological effects, and potential claims for health impairments. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Swiss-Re-SONAR-Publication-2019-excerpt-1.pdf

    And as you mention smart meters, there is a section on the Radiation Research Trust website which includes a link to a paper that we hand delivered with support from a couple of MPs to 10 Downing Street. We also presented this paper to the European Parliament with support from an MEP: https://www.radiationresearch.org/articles/smart-meters-smarter-practices-document/

    Huge respect for the campaigners at Brighton and Hove. I am sorry they are put in this position and wish them all the best and hope for a successful result as they go for round two in the courts.

  5. Eileen OConnor Reply

    A very important announcement received today from Action Against 5G confirms an up-and-coming court hearing. The Secretary of State is to be challenged in the Court of Appeal on failure to give adequate information to the public about the risks of 5G and to explain the absence of a process for investigation of any adverse health effects. Michael Mansfield QC, Philip Rule and Lorna Hackett of Hackett & Dabbs LLP represent the claimants. The Court of Appeal has granted permission on two grounds concerning:

    1. The failure to provide adequate or effective information to the public about the risks and how, if it be possible, it might be possible for individuals to avoid or minimise the risks;
    2. (a) The failure to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for not establishing a process to investigate and establish the adverse health effects and risks of adverse health effects from 5G technology and/or for discounting the risks presented by the evidence available; and/or (b) failure to meet the requirements of transparency and openness required of a public body.

    These grounds advance a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations to protect human life, health, and dignity, required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    The full day Court Hearing will take place at The Royal Courts of Justice on Strand, London WC2A 2LL on Tuesday, 13th December 2022.

    The message received from the Action Against 5G today confirms that the legal team have completed the preparation of the Exhibits, Statements and Reports and are now ready for the case to be heard. The message is clear following 32 months of diligent work that there has been no environmental risk assessment of the effects of 5G. Further details available here: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/legalactionagainst5g/

    How can Brighton and Hove grant permission for a 5G mast when it is clear from UK legal experts that is NO ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF 5G?

    • Peter Challis Reply

      Looking forward to the results of your case at the Court of Appeal. I imagine they will listen to all the relevant experts rather than a group of amateur fearmongers who are not just worried about 5g (but obviously don’t know what it is) but are paranoid about every form including radio and light at any level.

      Please could you explain what it is about 5g that makes it more dangerous than 4g, 3g, or even 2g?

  6. Jason Reply

    Ignore the troll, Eileen. Too many people, especially in the Brighton area, prefer to believe the government’s FALSE version of “the science” than take the trouble to study the REAL science behind anything.

    Anyone interested in the TRUE history of the dangers of radio waves and microwaves could do a lot worse imho than to read Arthur Firstenberg’s 2017 book “The invisible rainbow”.

    • Peter Challis Reply

      Not a troll, just a resident who understands technology and can research objectively. What are your talents?

      Plenty of 5g transmitters now operational across the UK and in Brighton and Hove. A new one has just been installed in Portslade and residents are looking forward to its activation.

      Anyone with basic scientific knowledge and having a sceptical mind to understand the technology would accept that the WHO who Eileen uses cherry-picked historic reports, says that if EMF is below defined limits then it is safe.

      I feel sorry for those parents that have been frightened by scaremongering misinformation from Eileen and her gullible cohorts.

      If there really was a problem with EMF from a 5g transmitter, then forcing a shorter tower would increase EMF levels at ground level. It just shows the ignorance of the anti-5g activists.

    • Peter Challis Reply

      Had a look at the reviews of Arthur Firstenberg’s 2017 book “The invisible rainbow” on Amazon – seems any think highly of it, but several question his theories (blaming electricity for everything), not considering other causes, and not offering any solutions.

      I suggest you switch off everything electrical in your home, install a Faraday cage, and only go out wearing a tin foil hat and 5g resistant clothing.

      How did your make your post without using electricity? 🤔

      • Peter Challis Reply

        Just searched for information on Arthur Firstenberg. Looks like he’s yet another campaigner who blames a medical problem on EMF but has no relevant qualifications and regularly brings legal cases that get thrown out. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Firstenberg

  7. Dr Richard Stow Reply

    Peter Challis depends heavily on insults and inflammatory language in making his case for taking the possible and unnecessary risk with children’s health.

    The children 27 metres away from the mast have no choice in whether they are safe or not. There is no reason to take the risk for the sake of relocating the mast, which thus appears to be a cynical disregard for the risk, which by definition of constantly evolving scientific knowledge, demands that even if there just may be a risk, the precaution would be not to expose the children who have no real choice, to chronic exposure, day in day out all school year.

    Please sign petition, email the Council planning.applications@brighton-hove.gov.uk with subject BH2022/03457 , or your Councillor or MP to object before sunday 4 December

    • Peter Challis Reply

      If you really are a PhD, and this is your area of expertise, you would appreciate that as long as EMF levels are within defined limits then they are safe.

      Or are you, too, just scaremongering?

      How worse is the risk of 5g using similar frequencies to Wi-Fi, or those freed up by Freeview, than the current 4g signals or EMF in the classrooms already?

  8. Carol Springgay Reply

    Here is the link to our petition supporting St Peters Community Primary School and Nursery to oppose the mast. https://chng.it/6SMPqTBY

    • Peter Challis Reply

      Had a look at your petition – a few of the signatories actually live in Portslade and might send their children to this school, but many more seem to be from all over the country.

      Looks like Eileen O’connor has been busy 🙄

Leave a Reply

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.