5G Antennae Planning Permission

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:


1 Like

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.

1 Like

Thanks Chris. Still time to get any letters of objection in. They have to be sent to Lewisham Council by 1st June.

Interestingly, and perhaps to the annoyance of EE, the BBC reported on the EE 5G launch today, but also added a section on “Is 5G safe” at the bottom of the article:

1 Like

Hi there, sorry I forgot to reply previously. If you look at the new LED street lights on both Forest Hill Road and Netherby Road you will see a small spike, this is I believe a Femtocell transmitter. Essentially they are already in place, ready for when 5G is rolled out.

1 Like

Great if it is, but are you sure that’s not for the leafnut control system used across Lewisham and other councils? Can you post a picture?

Oh OK, just looked at Leafnuts, that looks them, but they aren’t they also continuously emitting wi-fi and potentially connected to health-risks…?

Before hanging the wallpaper when next you decorate, hang a layer of tin foil. This should stop the WiFi signals from getting into your home, at least.

1 Like

Hi Promofaux, I get the sense that you are taking the piss and that is possibly deserved given my lazy comment made last evening.
I’d like to make it clear, I am not a flat-earther, a tin-foil hat wearer, a conspiracy theorist or a fan of David Icke, but I am concerned about the potential affect of technology that has not been tested for its long term affects on humans. The fact that Lloyds of London has refused to insure wireless technology is interesting, why might that be?
On 6th Feb this year, US Senator Blumental asked a question in regard to any ongoing independent scientific studies into the affect of 5G on human health. There are none.
I personally am not happy about being a guinea pig when it comes to this technology, if that makes me crazy to some, ce la vie.

It may or may not have been said with my tongue wedged firmly in my cheek. :smirk: It was a comment on the general idea, rather than personally levelled at you, apologies if it was taken as such.

And yet those that are, are, are, and do are the ones writing blog posts and “articles” on the subject. Which makes it quite difficult to properly research the subject and get to the facts

It really took some digging about on the internet to find more information about this. On the surface, you are correct in this statement. As attested to in an article in The Observer back in 1999, and I am yet to find any evidence to the contrary.

So down the rabbit hole I went… after several search terms based around the words “Lloyds” “London” “Refuse” “wireless” “5G” etc, and clicking to the 10th+ page or so of search results for each term, I stumbled upon a paper written by Lloyds covering the subject, and a screen grab of the executive summary from it.


If I’m being honest, I have no real strong feelings on the subject, and I’m no scientist or doctor. But when presented with some information, I find it pays to go searching for the other side of the story. Yes I’m a pompous git sometimes.

Adam Puts on his Conspiracy Theorist hat : If we were being used as guinea pigs for this sort of thing, then those experiments would have happened years ago and in secret before the technology was even considered being announced to the public.



The leafnut system looks to predominantly use the 868MHz ISM band to link the majority of nodes to a central hub which then also has a mobile phone-like modem to communicate back to base. It is not WiFi, but says it uses WiMAC - likely either a proprietary protocol or typo in the marketing department for WiMAX.

The 868MHz is the same as garage door openers, wireless burglar alarms, some wireless CCTV and so on use. It is unlikely to transmit continuously as that would waste power, and it is also a requirement for devices using this band not to ‘jam’ it and co-operate. This means they are restricted to short bursts or chirps of transmission with lots of gaps in between.

I’m doubtful this system has health effects, especially as the transmitters are generally a few meters up so the radiated power very small at street level anyway. There is however a Daily mail article about these systems which claims residents of one village had all sorts of ill health effects from street lighting systems - I won’t link it here as it’s tripe, but I’m sure you can find it if you are interested.

As for generally worrying about this stuff… well if you search around there’s lots about coffee being a carcinogen or not, and even pottery can apparently be toxic too, particularly when firing it. As pointed out by @promofaux there is a lot of bad science written out there so it makes it difficult to form an objective view.


Here’s a reasonable article from Sky news discussing the safety of 5G and mobile phone use: