Sent via Email for the attention of:
Brighton and Hove Planning case officer Matthew Gest
Email: Planning.Applications@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Copied: EM Radiation Research Trust Chairman, Mr Brian Stein CBE
Peter Kyle MP for Hove – Email: hove.portslade@parliament.uk
Councillor Les Hamilton – Email: Leslie.hamilton@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Councillor Alan Robins – Email: alan.robins@brighton-hove.gov.uk
24th November 2022
Dear Matthew Gest,
Ref: BH2022/03457
I formally give notice of objection against phone mast application by WHP Telecoms Ltd acting on behalf of CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Ltd for the Installation of a 15m high Phase 8 Monopole with wrapround cabinet at base and installation of 3no ancillary cabinets at Land South of 91 Fishergate Terrace Portslade.
WHP Telecoms Ltd supplied information to offer reassurance regarding health and safety concerns. This letter of objection challenges Government and Industries claims of safety in using ICNIRP. It also provides legal cases that have successfully challenged false and outdated claims of safety.
The EM Radiation Research Trust (RRT) calls on Brighton and Hove Planning Authority, Local MP Peter Kyle, and local councillors Les Hamilton and Alan Robins to protect the health and safety of the local community, especially the children attending St Peter’s School. The RRT also call on the local authority to protect the local area from the visual impacts associated with the clutter associated with the ancillary works and the overpowering visual impact of a 15m high Phase 8 Monopole with wrapround cabinet at base and installation of 3no ancillary cabinets.
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. I have worked with cross party members of the UK and European parliament’s offering help to provide advice and information for parliamentary questions and reports, also presented written and verbal evidence at local and national Government level in the UK, European Parliament, and EU Commission. I was also a member of the UK Health Protection Agency EMF Discussion Group chaired by Sir William Stewart and a member of the EU Commission Dialogue Group on EMFs.
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:
- 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 there is NO ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF 5G?
Continue reading here: Brighton and Hove 5G objection Eileen OConnor Nov 2022