In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9 (Public Participation), a question has been submitted by Mr T Cox, resident of Central Sandhurst as set out below:
“I would like to petition the council to do a proper review of 5G technology before proceeding with any more installations (e.g. Ringmead). There has been little to no real life testing done on 5G technology. There is no demand as far as I know from speaking to my friends and residents here in Bracknell Forest. Does the council have any evidence at all of the demand for a new and unsafe technology?
This is a call for action as a matter of interest to the health and wellbeing of the community and would appreciate it being raised at the next meeting for action.”
Minutes:
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9 (Public Participation), a question was submitted by Mr Cox, resident of Central Sandhurst as set out below:
“I would like to petition the council to do a proper review of 5G technology before proceeding with any more installations (e.g. Ringmead).
There has been little to no real life testing done on 5G technology.
There is no demand as far as I know from speaking to my friends and residents here in Bracknell Forest. Does the council have any evidence at all of the demand for a new and unsafe technology?
This is a call for action as a matter of interest to the health and wellbeing of the community and would appreciate it being raised at the next meeting for action.”
In response Councillor Brunel-Walker, Executive Member for Economic Development and Regeneration thanked Mr Cox for submitting the question and explained that the Government had set out its ambition to deliver a 5G network across the whole country with information contained within the “Enabling 5G” document published by Ofcom. The aim was to improve the digital connectivity for consumers, business and public services. He stated that the document sets out the way in which the Planning system has been adapted to enable 5G development and the general view from Government was that there is a demand for 5G, and it is committed to its delivery across the whole country.
He explained that the Government was clear that local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only and 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. He explained that as such the council needed to work within the legislative framework set when dealing with requests for new 5G installations and it was not in a position to stop any further installations based on the grounds set out in the published question.
He continued that from a Public Health perspective, the Council was guided by evidence of harm to the wider population and worked within the framework set by Public Health England whose position on the safety of the technology was set out on the government’s website. He quoted that “It is possible that there may be a small increase in overall exposure to radio waves when 5G is added to an existing network or in a new area. However, the overall exposure is expected to remain low relative to guidelines and, as such, there should be no consequences for public health.”
Councillor Brunel-Walker concluded that the Council would not be undertaking any form of 5G study nor would it be refusing the installation of 5G technology where the normal criteria that would be applied to these types of planning applications were met. He asked that the links to webpages he had referred to be shared via the minutes.
The links to information on this topic are listed below:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/5g-mobile-technology-a-guide
https://www.mobileuk.org/5g-and-health
https://www.mobileuk.org/5g-and-health-concerns