5G Antennae Planning Permission

Good Morning, I live in Honor Oak, on Friday I received a letter from Lewisham Council advising me that a planning application has been received by Mobile Network UK (EE and one other), to erect a new antennae on the flats at Greystead Road. It is in preparation for 5G which is to be rolled out possibly as early as this summer.
Bearing in mind that no testing has been done to prove the safety of 5G, but plenty of peer studies proving its harm, I believe that we should be opposing this technology until we know it’s long-term effects.
5G has been banned in several places due to health concerns.
Greystead Rd is next to Fairlawn School, and close to the Catholic School on Forest Hill Road. Do we really want our children in the middle of this ‘electro-smog’?
Please consider writing to Lewisham Council by June 1st, the planning ref is DC/19/11166 - you can check out the application on the Lewisham Council website.
If anyone would like to do some leafleting with me, or organise a local group to fight this, please pm me.

1 Like

I’d be greatful if you could share the peer reviewed studies as I’d love to take a look. Thanks


Thanks for sharing, @NickyB50 and welcome to the forum.

When I first heard about 5G I was shocked at how ubiquitous the masts will need to be (due to the lower penetrative power of 5G vs 4G). I’d be interested to see the current research on health implications.

I’ve always felt the health scares around the 3G and 4G masts were overblown. But that said, I wouldn’t want to live next door to one…

I think this the application in question:



Hi Andy and Chris, to be honest I am ploughing what seems to be a huge amount of material written by scientists across the world.
I will post some links below for you to check out, I know it might seem lazy not to post one definitive article, but I think that’s the point, we are at a stage of trying to understand this technology which is radically different from 3G & 4G.

For Lewisham Council to say that it is safe and that the masts should be allowed is a little premature.

1 Like

Thats the one. If you click through the documents you will see that the application has been made in the name of EE who are texting all their customers (me included) to announce the roll out of 5G later this year.

Aside from the main topic, I’m amused that the site drawings include the ‘existing pirate radio equipment and antenna’.

However, the matter of radio transmission safety and limits is surely one for Ofcom, and not a planning issue as such? Notably there is little technical description of what’s being deployed, such as frequency, transmission power and azimuth.

Not one for conspiracy theories, but to play devils advocate:

(AFAIK, NYT is a reputable source of information, albiet biased slightly to the left)


Thanks for the links.

It’s a shame that the neither of the linked articles stipulate what potential ‘issues’ with 5G are, or whether it is a matter of unknown unknowns, rather than known unknowns. The 5G standard is a bundle of mini standards, but I can pick up that two issues relate to the new, higher frequencies used in 5G (currently used in WiFi and microwaves) and the beam forming technologies (you can aim the 5G transmissions). Both of those enable higher energy waves with (i) the frequency being proportional to energy (hello, E = hf from GCSE physics), and (ii) it is safer to aim higher energy waves that to transmit them indiscriminately.

One feature of using the higher frequency waves for 5G is that the waves are attenuated by air, so the signal strength will drop off quickly without requiring solid objects to get in their way, hence the cells have to be more densely arranged.

Time will tell, I guess, but I disagree with Chris as I would be happy for a 5G antenna to be installed on his roof (not on mine though).

1 Like


BT announced this week that they’re planning on selectively launching a 5G service in September. I’m delighted the we’re amongst the first areas to have 5G. Every mobile generation has had similar stories of frying brains as a result of spectrum usage. We’re also not the first country to launch the tech - s Korea, the us, China, Japan have all had fixed wireless 5 g for a little while now, without any side effects. Bristol, unbelievably a hub of 5G research has had 5G trials in the city centre for a couple of years now.

If you feel uneasy about it, You can read more on the research that has been done by government agencies and others here:


The main benefit of fixed wireless access is that you can cut the landline rental from your monthly bill and go entirely wireless.

There are very few 5G smartphones available at the moment and as an apple user, as I am we can expect to be amongst the last to upgrade. I plan to hold off upgrading my device until probably September 2020 when apple will probably finally get around to launching a 5G capable device.


Will be great to do away with ADSL and fibre, and for everything to be wireless over the cell network. I could accept a little bit of brain frying if it saves me forking out for both broadband and cell contracts


Ironically Relish Broadband, who were providing fixed access via 4G in the 3.8GHz band, were bought by 3UK to gain access to that slice of spectrum for 5G services.

Interestingly Relish was owned by the son of 3UKs ultimate owner. To quote the FT (paywall):

“Three is owned by CK Hutchison, controlled by Asia’s richest man Li Ka-shing, while UK Broadband, the company behind Relish, is owned by Hong Kong-based telecoms company PCCW, which is run by his son Richard Li.”

Either way, and perhaps more relevant to the original post, the sub-6GHz frequency bands for 5G ‘New Radio’ operation should be uncontroversial - WiFi can already operate at 5GHz and 4G (LTE-TDD) mode is at 3.5GHz in parts of the country already. There’s a good overview of spectrum allocation around the world here, for the curious:


Perhaps fear mongering over the new millimetre-wave band’s above 24GHz is more valid as that’s novel for a commercial communications system (and the benefits could be huge!). But still no one’s bringing forth that evidence. Unfortunately testing that something isn’t linked, and doing so accurately and with significant confidence is very hard in science. That can unfortunately allow the psuedo-scientists space for their agenda.


A good article in the Lancet…

“written by scientists across the World”. That doesn’t mean anything. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists who publish articles and studies every single day. Doesn’t mean they are right or there’s any scientific consensus. The majority of studies published each day are absolute rubbish

The sun is what actually gives you cancer. I thought this Quora answer gave a few pretty straight-forward comparisons:



Not really. It’s non-specific to 5G, mentioning it only once, and addressing general ‘electro-smog’.

A number of the linked papers are paywalled too, which is frustrating, and those it does cite aren’t very convincing. For example, in the first paragraph it says “acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism by NIH scientists”. If you look at the first linked paper (Effects of Cell Phone Radio frequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism), it concludes that there is an effect, but “This finding is of unknown clinical significance.” i.e. they don’t know if it is harmful, beneficial or anything else for humans. The methodologies in the paper were also poor - they consider being in a ‘phone call’ as a singular state, but the reality is much more complex. While they did have a bit of equipment to verify the mobile signal (an FHS6, better than my FSH4), we know nothing of the output power or frequency. I note they muted the speaker on the phone, presumably to rule out audio stimulation being an explanation. The don’t say if they muted the microphone however - in a quiet or silent surrounding a mobile will actually stop transmitting for periods and greatly lower emissions compared with a noisy environment; this increases battery life and efficiency. They also didn’t rule out other RF sources. To be scientific they should have conducted the experiment in a shielded room with a calibrated RF generator.

So from that paper do we even know that the mobile was producing sufficient RF energy to have any likely effect vs anything environmental? Were other error sources removed, such a direct thermal effects?

As long and respected as The Lancet is, this doesn’t look compelling or conclusive. It wouldn’t however be the first time The Lancet got it wrong, remember when they published the flawed paper wrongly linking MMR and Autism?


BT/EE has announced that they plan to launch 5G services at the end of the month. Doesn’t look like Honor Oak/Forest HIll are included in the first phase of roll out, but with planning underway for further masts, we most probably won’t have to wait long.


Other service providers will follow soon.

5G devices launched with the service include devices from Samsung, Oppo, One Plus (two chinese vendors) and LG.

More detail here:


This is clearly in preparation for 5G. Read the documents attached to the planning application. Government pressure for Lewisham to allow this roll out. Letters from the 5G industry calling for less strict regulations to improve ‘efficiency’.
I’m not a flat-earther or a conspiracy theorist, but I do think that technology introduced to every home should be tested for safety first.

DC_19_111668-5G_AND_FUTURE_TECHNOLOGY-781761.pdf (250.4 KB)


DC_19_111668-NOTICE_UNDER_ARTICLE_14-783208.pdf (63.7 KB)

DC_19_111668-PLANNING_STATEMENT-781762.pdf (75.2 KB)

The planning application is for changes to an existing cell site, and isn’t exactly a ‘technology introduced to every home’. If we were discussing femto-cell type devices using millimeter wave bands for 5G I would sympathise with the concern. Perhaps we should worry more about Virgin Media set top boxes and BT Home Hubs using 2.4GHz and 5GHz WiFi signals, but that seems uncontroversial?

Still, it’s the job of Ofcom to regulate spectrum use and safe power levels in the UK, not council planning departments who are skilled in other areas of expertise.