Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

by Winston Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:34 am

Hi. Looking for some urgent advice for 'next steps' to take. Long story short - a family member in England saw a Council 'notice' pinned to a fence stating that a 15m Phase 8 monopole (cell tower / communication tower) was to be erected effectively right next to their house (within probably 150 feet).

After talking it through I drafted a 'Notice of Rejection' which unequivocally rejected their planning proposal outright. We also spoke with several other neighbours who were equally incandescent with rage about this proposal and they all followed suit and sent in (via reg/mail) their own rejection notices.

Today we hear (via an email to a different neighbour uninvolved in the process) that the Council are going ahead with the development 'after consideration'. The reply they have sent specifically mentions 'Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015' - after reading this cornucopia of legalistic jibberish I return to the original point that a rejection(s) of planning permission is 'final' and for this corporation to ignore this is in itself criminal. Indeed, I cannot yet establish 'who' the Council apply to approve their planning permission (probably themselves).

What steps, measures or advice can anyone offer for us to do next? Is the idea of an injunction valid/useful (even though I know this means applying to 'their' court system)?

I'm also reading about the 'Void Order' that is described as:

"If an 'ORDER' in court was made because the Judge or any party to the judgment had no jurisdiction, broke the law or ignored due process, that order is VOID. Anything AFTER the point when the person acted ultra vires is void AB INITIO - i.e. IT DIDN"T HAPPEN. You can apply to have that VOID ORDER nullified."

As the Council are referencing the Town and Country Planning Order 2015 this may be a route to establish the premise on which these organizations operate are illegitimate to begin with as they have no jurisdiction.

Thank you in advance for any contributions.

by Winston Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:42 am

PRIVATE

God is my judge

XXXXX XXXXX
DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS AND RESOURCES
SECTION 151 OFFICER
XXXXXXXXX COUNCIL
XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
[NEAR: XXXX XXX]
10th September 2022

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF PLANNING APPLICATION XX/XXXX/XX/XXX

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Greetings XXXXX XXXXX,

With this NOTICE OF REJECTION OF PLANNING APPLICATION XX/XXXX/XX/XXX, I hereby give NOTICE that I REJECT Planning Application XX/XXXX/XX/XXX concerning the installation of 15m Phase 8 monopole at the XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX (adj to XXXXX XXXXXX), XXXXXXXXX, XXXX XXX.

For irrevocable and unequivocal clarity;
I reject Planning Application XX/XXXX/XX/XXX

As Section 151 Officer, XXXXXXXX COUNCIL, fiduciary to taxpayers, I require you to inform and bring to the attention of any and all elected and non-elected Officers and officials involved in and relevant to PLANNING APPLICATION XX/XXX/XX/XXX, my expression of will in this matter.

I thank you for your kind action and diligent attention in this matter,
Blessings upon you and your team.

xxxx xxxxx : friend of the town:
in care of: xxx xxxx xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx [NEAR: XXXX XXX]

do no harm

by **daveiron** Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:25 am

Having taken the Peace Keepers free course,It appears to me that the
Bill of Rights 1688 & also the Coronation Oath Act 1688 along with other
old laws ,all of which are still current and cannot be repealed. State very
clearly that no legislation can be enacted if it prejudice the people.

It makes it very clear that the people are sovereign ,not the government
or parliament assembled. I think it may be of great help if your group collectivly
studied it together.

In the meantime ,i would produce a Notice of liability to every councillor
personally ,and witness delivery to the council offices.

Also if they start work ,as a group gather and film every workman,their
vehicles ,company name etc,and inform them that should anyone be harmed
by their actions (installing) they will be held under their personal liability as
they have now been informed of potential harm they may cause.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Neither is order following.

by Winston Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:39 pm

Dave - thank you for the reply and advice, which we will study further and action.

Do you have any idea 'who' or 'where' these Councils get their planning permissions approved? If 'they' are the ones applying for planning permission then which independent body is reviewing / approving them? As far as we can tell they appear to decide this themselves.

With respect to 'Notice of Liability' - I haven't used one of those yet so I'll search for any existing examples on the site to see if we can use it as a basis for this. Thus far the Notices of Rejection were sent to two Directors of the Council - would you suggest expanding this to include all Directors? Thank you.

by **daveiron** Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:02 pm

Not sure if we have liability notices on here, however there will be many
online. This could additionally be handled with a NoCA.
I have seen elsewhere that its above the councils heads and they
will pass the buck.
The buck stops somewhere though.
Also worth remembering that if these towers cause you all distress ,that
alone is assult.
You should also get a NoL to ALL who have a part in this,make it personal.

by Winston Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:23 pm

Perhaps unsurprisingly the Council have not replied to ANY of the Notices of Rejection - rather they replied to neighbour that inquired into the status of the planning permission. I mention this as procedural impropriety and as an indication of the unwillingness of the Council to engage in good faith with the men & women who rejected their proposal. From what I can tell each Council is supposed to have a 'Scheme of Delegation' which details the individuals delegated so-called 'authority' to make such decisions as these - I've yet to find this particular Councils version of this.

But as you stated in your first reply - the Bills Of Rights / Coronation Act et al demonstrate these corporations have no jurisdiction nor authority - yet continue on regardless. Another curiosity in all this is that it appears the company actually applying for permission to build this tower is Chinese...! Foreign agents working for foreign agents.

by Winston Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:35 pm

Sorry Dave I forgot to ask - if we use the NoCA approach as well, what are we conditionally accepting? That the tower is acceptable on condition that XXXXXX? I.E. safety, harm, environmental impact etc? I can see the value in this of course but as with all documentation the framing of the arguments / conditions are paramount.

What I see with these Councils (other than the obvious corruption) is them attempting to place themselves as interlopers between parties to avoid direct liability - they will claim they simply approved planning permission and are not liable for the subsequent 'harm' caused (which is a bogus argument in and of itself), thus providing a barrier for them to defend themselves. I very much like the idea of making each man & woman liable for their decisions as this entity 'Council' is non-existent.

by **daveiron** Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:40 am

When i looked at this some time ago the excuse the councils were using
was a regulator,(not sure which one) . But working on the assumption
that they need planning permission ,then there must be a responsability
for the council.
Yes you have it correct with the NoCA route.
Keep an accurate record of everything you send them ,if they do not respond
to notice 1 ,notice 2 should include the words Notice of Non-Response and oppertunity
to cure,notice 3 notice of default (they have defaulted in their duty)
notice 4 is their tacit agreement and they are in agreement of all the points
you have in your first notice.

Just came across this ,may be of some use.
https://smombiegate.org/how-to-legally-oppose-planning-for-4g-5g-mobile-phone-masts-or-cell-towers/

by Winston Wed Nov 30, 2022 7:07 pm

Thank you very much for the info and link Dave - it is much appreciated. In particular the info in the link is interesting - trying to find an archive for this type of information, and strategies & approaches that actually work, is not easy.

Re the NoCA - I'm familiar with and have used a NoCA a few times but never in sequence as you suggest (i.e. 1 - 4). Is the wording or format different in each case? Thanks again.

by **daveiron** Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:04 pm

I would suggest number your questions in the NoCA
Give thought to the questions ,you want answers under their personal
libility,the same format as our ones for debts.
If any of the questions are not answered in notice 1 ,repeat them in notice
2 .The chances are if your questions are well thought out ,they will not
answer them .after notice 3,if they have failed to answer the questions
you can answer for them .
These documents can be very important so ensure you obtain evidence of
their delivery.
It may be a better idea to hand them in at the council offices and obtain
a receipt for them, also take 2 people with you as witnesses.

by Sponsored content

Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Re: Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Re: Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Re: Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Re: Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Re: Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Re: Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Re: Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Re: Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Re: Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast

Re: Cell Phone Tower (15m Phase 8 monopole) Communications Mast