Proposals to install 5G masts in Govan submitted to council
An application for rights to install electronic communications and apparatus at Helen Street overlooking the M8 has been sent to the planning department by WHP Telecoms Ltd on behalf of Vodafone in conjunction with Cornerstone.
The site is owned or managed by Cellnex UK, a radio site infrastructure provider, and if approved the apparatus will form part of the operator's new 5G mobile networks.
As part of the development the site will see the removal of six existing antennas and the installation of six new ones.
In a cover letter to the council's planning department, the developer argues there is significant support from the Government.
It reads: 'There is significant UK Government support for the delivery of 5G, particularly as this new connectivity will be a step change from earlier generations of mobile connectivity and will be critical to economic growth and sustainable communities.'
Glasgow City Council has also adopted the Scottish Government's vision when it comes to rolling out 5G which states they must 'act collectively' to ensure all of Scotland – including rural areas – benefit from this revolution.
The 5G strategy hopes to create better, healthier and happier lives for everyone and for Scotland to be at the forefront of the revolution and established as a leading 5G digital nation.
The strategy states: '5G is so much more than an upgrade of previous generations of mobile connectivity.
'It will enable new or enhanced connectivity in the fields of transport, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and remote monitoring – the opportunities are endless. This enhanced connectivity will make us more productive and efficient as a country and play a vital role in the transition to a zero-carbon economy and tackling the climate emergency.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Is Australia supplying weapons to bomb Gaza? Here's what we know about fighter jet parts in the F-35 program
The Australian government has announced it will recognise the state of Palestine, but many politicians and human rights groups are demanding tougher action to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Greens have urged the Albanese government to stop supplying F-35 parts to a global supply chain that can be accessed by Israel, in addition to direct sanctions on senior members of the Netanyahu government. But the federal government denies it is sending weapons to Israel and has criticised 'misinformation' about the F-35s. So what do we know about Australia's role in the supply chain? The Israel Defense Forces has confirmed F-35 planes are used to 'strike terror targets and assist ground forces in very close proximity strikes'. In February last year, a Dutch appeals court found it was likely that F-35s were being used in attacks on Gaza, and a 'clear risk' that parts exported from the Netherlands were 'used in serious violations of international humanitarian law'. Sign up: AU Breaking News email In September, Danish media reported Israel had confirmed an F-35 was used in a missile strike in southern Gaza that killed 90 people and injured hundreds more. Lawyers representing the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq have previously told a UK court the F-35s have played a critical role in Gaza and linked them to airstrikes that have killed more than 400 people, including 183 children and 94 women. The Israeli government was contacted for comment. More than 75 Australian companies have contributed to the global supply chain for the F-35 program, according to the defence department. More than 700 of the fighter jet's 'critical pieces' are manufactured in Victoria alone, according to the state government. One company, RUAG Australia, is the only global supplier of the F-35's 'uplock actuator system', which allows the jet to quickly open its bay doors and fire missiles while maintaining stealth. Australia also hosts a regional distribution hub for F-35 parts. In April, the defence department said Australian companies have been paid around $5bn for their contributions to the F-35 supply chain so far. This is a relatively small proportion of the overall program. Last year, the US government accountability office said the F-35s would cost 'more than $2tn over several decades'. The global supply chain is coordinated by the F-35's primary manufacturer Lockheed Martin in the US. The fighter jet is used by the US and 19 allies, including the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan and South Korea. Manufacturers are not contracted to supply parts to one specific nation, such as Israel. Instead, they supply enough parts for large batches of F-35s that are purchased from Lockheed Martin. In July, the Declassified website published a story alleging dual civilian and military use aircraft parts had been sent from Sydney to Tel Aviv. The story cited shipping records that allegedly listed Lockheed Martin as the source of the parts and described them as being for the 'JSF', or the F-35 joint strike fighter. An Australian government spokesperson said it 'does not have a direct bilateral arrangement with the government of Israel in relation to the F-35 program'. 'Australia has not supplied weapons or ammunition to Israel since the Israel-Gaza conflict began and not for at least the past five years,' the spokesperson said. Lockheed Martin was contacted for comment on whether F-35 parts were sent from Australia to Israel directly. Parts can only be sourced from nations allied with the US due to national security fears. In 2022, deliveries were briefly suspended when Chinese parts were discovered in an F-35. 'Replacing such suppliers would not be straightforward, as Lockheed would have a limited list of countries from which to source components,' said Kelsey Gallagher, a senior researcher with the Canada-based research institute Ploughshares, who specialises in the F-35 supply chain. 'A country like Australia refusing to transfer F-35 components could have a sizeable impact on the program, given how many individual aircraft they are contracted to supply at once,' Gallagher said. It depends on the parts. Several Australian companies are the sole global supplier for some F-35 parts. If these parts were withheld, there could be a significant short-term impact on repairs and sales. Last year, Lockheed Martin told a US court that one relatively small supplier not providing titanium products, as contracted to do so, would 'cause unavoidable and substantial delays in Lockheed Martin's delivery of F-35 aircraft to the United States, threatening national security and Lockheed Martin's reputation and goodwill'. Josh Paul, a former US state department official who resigned over US arms shipments to Israel, says the impact would be greatest if nations acted together in protest against the killing in Gaza. 'The nature of the [F-35] consortium is that all of the countries would feel the crunch and therefore feel compelled to accept that agreement,' Paul told the ABC. Gallagher said most of the contracts between Lockheed Martin and small companies, including subcontractors in Australia, were not public and it was difficult to make claims with certainty. But he referred to a 2025 Lockheed Martin corporate document that told suppliers their 'timely performance is a critical element' of their contracts. 'Logically, a subawardee failing to supply parts following a contract signing could only be seen as a breach of that contract, whatever the reason,' Gallagher said. In 2023, Lockheed Martin sued US-based subcontractor Howmet for failing to deliver F-35 components after a contract dispute. The matter was settled out of court and Howmet continues to supply parts. Gallagher said Lockheed Martin faces financial penalties from the US department of defence for failing to deliver jets on time. 'It could then follow that Lockheed would pass those penalties onto subcontractors that have some part in the delays,' Gallagher said. So far, no country has withdrawn from the F-35 supply chain. But several companies have taken action to reduce or cut the supply of new military equipment to Israel. Germany has stopped exporting material that could be used by Israel during its military operations in Gaza. Germany is the second largest arms supplier to Israel after the US. Australia's defence minister, Richard Marles, says Australia cannot announce similar action to Germany as it does not directly supply arms to Israel. Regarding the F-35 parts, he said on Sunday: 'That is a multilateral arrangement with supply chains that are organised by Lockheed Martin in the United States and have multiple suppliers in respect of all of those supply chains.' The German company Rheinmetall produces fuselages for the global F-35 supply chain. These contributions have not been stopped. In September, the UK suspended most relevant arms export licences for use in Israel. Some nations think so, but this is difficult to independently substantiate. When the UK suspended arms export licenses, it gave a carve-out to the F-35 program, saying international peace and security required that it was not disrupted. The UK is the second largest supplier of parts after the US. The UK government told a court that suspending exports to the F-35 program would have impacted the battle to prevent Russia from occupying Ukraine, as the F-35 was a central pillar of Nato. The Australian government is required to make similar judgments before awarding export licences for parts used in the F-35. It must consider 12 criteria, including the balance between human rights concerns and national security and foreign policy considerations. Under the arms trade treaty, which Australia is a party to, providing weapons to a group involved in armed conflict can lead to criminal liability if the equipment is used to commit war crimes. In January last year, the international court of justice ruled the claim of genocide in Gaza was 'plausible'. The Greens senator David Shoebridge says component parts are considered weapons and Australia is therefore breaching international law. But Donald Rothwell, an international law expert at the Australian National University, says he would 'not be as decisive' as Shoebridge in his interpretation of international law. Rothwell said being definitive was difficult as 'there can be so many component parts of weapons'. 'Some component parts may have been exported to Israel for civilian use but then utilised for weapons,' Rothwell says. 'I would take the view, though, that Australian exports that are component weapon parts, and which are exported to the IDF, are contributing to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.' Paul told the ABC last week that Australia's supply of components and parts to the F-35 fighter jets, which have been used by Israel, constitutes 'directly the facilitation of war crimes'. During a recent court hearing, the UK government acknowledged its supply of F-35 components for potential use in Israel was in breach of its own arms export control laws. Around 15% of the F-35's parts, including ejection seats, are made in the UK. The Australian Centre for International Justice, a non-profit legal centre, says Australia's role in the supply chain 'raises grave concerns that Australian parts and components are involved in the atrocities we have seen unfold in Gaza'. Amnesty International Australia's Mohamed Duar has said 'the lack of transparency surrounding Australia's defence exports has made it extremely difficult to determine the extent of our involvement in the commission of genocide and war crimes'. Human Rights Watch was among 232 civil society organisations who urged nations involved in the F-35 supply chain to 'immediately halt all arms transfers to Israel'. Marles says Australia does not supply weapons to Israel and has complained about 'misinformation' regarding exports, arguing it has 'raised tensions in this country, which is deeply destabilising for Australia's social cohesion'. Marles says Australia has contributed to the F-35 program for decades as part of a multi-lateral agreement with Lockheed Martin in the US, rather than Israel directly. The foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, has also described Australia's contributions to the supply chain as 'non-lethal in nature'.
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Migrants attempting to enter UK in refrigerated trailers are ‘constant threat'
The study, published by logistics company Oakland International, stated that 4,415 instances of a truck or van being found with stowaways seeking to reach the UK were recorded between 2016 and 2023. An average of nearly 100 people per month were detected infiltrating trucks entering the UK between January and September last year. People hiding in trailers cause delays, increased costs, potential damage to goods and disposal of produce, researchers found. Companies transporting food, household goods and healthcare items dispose of an average of 56% of stock on an infiltrated lorry. The value of lost stock can be up to tens of thousands of pounds, research found. This can result in revenue loss several times higher. The report, produced with research company Analytiqa, stated: 'The use of refrigerated trailers to gain illegal access for stowaways remains a constant threat to food safety and contributes to considerable unnecessary waste and risk within the food supply chain.' Oakland International co-founder Dean Attwell said: 'The rise in clandestine infiltration is not just a statistic, it's a ticking time bomb for food safety, driver security and public health. 'Every compromised load puts the public at risk and costs the industry millions per year. 'We need urgent, co-ordinated action across the supply chain to implement robust security protocols, improve traceability and ensure accountability at every stage.' In cases where a vehicle is found carrying a hidden entrant, the Government can issue the transport company with fines of up to £10,000 per stowaway. Road Haulage Association senior public affairs lead Ashton Cull said failings within Border Force and the Clandestine Entrant Civil Penalty Scheme mean 'all the responsibility and liability is being unfairly shifted onto drivers and businesses who have taken all possible steps to secure their vehicles'. He added: 'We repeat our call for further and urgent investment in training and technology at our borders to help keep loads secure. 'We want to see a fair system in place that protects drivers, goods and businesses as well as our borders. 'We look forward to seeing greater urgency on this issue.' The Home Office was approached for a comment.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Thames Water says new Abingdon reservoir could cost bill payers up to £7.5bn
Struggling Thames Water has said a new reservoir in Oxfordshire could cost more than three times the original budget, pushing the eventual cost to be covered by water bill payers to as much as £7.5bn. In a blow to government plans for an expansion in the number of reservoirs across south-east England, the heavily indebted utility said a review of the Abingdon project had sent the estimated cost of construction from £2.2bn to between £5.5bn and £7.5bn. Only last year, Thames told the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) that its assessment of likely costs was 'robust'. But the company has now told regulators that further tests, including of the ground and local waterways, had shown the final bill would be more than twice, and possibly three times, the current forecast. If the reservoir goes ahead, customers will pick up the tab. About half the costs are due to be recovered from Thames Water's 16 million customers across London and the south-east, with Affinity Water and Southern Water customers sharing the rest. Thames customers already face a 35% increase in bills over the next five years under a settlement by the sector regulator Ofwat, while those with Affinity face a 26% lift and with Southern the rise is 53%. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has pledged to build nine major reservoirs – the country's first in 30 years – in her determination to take on 'the blockers' opposing construction projects and renew the UK's ageing infrastructure. In an article published in the Guardian this week, she said the government wanted to 'break down the planning system to get Britain building'. Ministers have backed the scheme, which will be capable of holding 150bn litres of water in an area the size of Gatwick airport, after assessments found Thames will need to find an extra 1bn litres of water every day by 2050. Regulators have accepted that Thames Water would be unable to reduce leaks or redirect watercourses to mitigate this extra usage as part of a 50-year plan. Last year, the Abingdon reservoir was designated as a nationally significant infrastructure project and fast-tracked through planning approval without a public inquiry. The move prompted local campaigners to challenge the decision in the high court, but the appeal was rejected last month. Derek Stork, the chair of the Group Against Reservoir Development, said Thames must have known 10 months ago when it responded to a Defra request for more financial details that its costs had risen steeply. Stork, a retired former head of technology at the Atomic Energy Authority, said Thames must also have been informed of the rising costs when it defended the civil action earlier this summer brought by local residents and the countryside charity CPRE. 'We predicted this would happen, but even I am astonished by the increase to £7.5bn,' he said. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion The reservoir has proved controversial after Thames Water said it would need to build walls up to 25 metres high to contain the mass of water inside. Local streams that run across the land will also need to be redirected close to homes in nearby villages, increasing the likelihood of local flooding, it is claimed. Most reservoirs are built in natural valleys or on substantial areas of clay, which are in short supply in the south-east of England. Thames Water said the reservoir remained a priority project despite the increase in costs. Nevil Muncaster, the firm's strategic water resources director, said: ''[Today] we published our Gate Three report for our proposed reservoir in Oxfordshire, in line with the regulatory process that we are following for its design and development. 'The report marks a critical milestone in our development of the reservoir. It reflects the extensive work we have done to evolve our proposed design and better understand what it will take to deliver it. 'Working through the development process, we are applying lessons from other major projects in the UK, wherever we are able. This has included providing an update on what we expect the reservoir to cost as early as possible and well before construction, when it becomes difficult to adapt to revisions. 'The reservoir is a critical piece of infrastructure for meeting future water demand in the south-east and remains one of the preferred options in our water resource management plan which sets out our strategy to protect water supply for the next 50 years and beyond.'' Thames has submitted the review amid a desperate struggle to avoid collapse. It has amassed a £20bn debt pile and a deal with private equity firm KKR to inject £4bn of funds to keep the company afloat was abandoned in June. The company's creditors have put forward a rescue plan contingent on regulators agreeing to waive hundreds of millions of pounds in sewage pollution fines. This week it emerged that Steve Reed, the environment secretary, has appointed City insolvency advisers to prepare for the company's potential collapse into a special administration regime (SAR) – a form of temporary nationalisation. It was also reported that if that situation arises, the Hong Kong infrastructure company CKI is a frontline contender to buy the company out of an SAR.
