Using the Law to Enforce Truly Protective Decision-Making by Local Authorities
In 2019, as 5G began rolling out across the UK, campaigners and scientists raised urgent concerns about the inadequacy of the ICNIRP guidelines to protect the public from non-ionising radiation. Exposure levels were increasing across a wider frequency range, and those suffering acute and chronic health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) were being denied recognition, diagnosis, and support.
Speaking out often meant being dismissed as ‘tin-foil hatters.‘
Scientists and doctors around the world had already begun to challenge the integrity and scientific basis of ICNIRP and its close links with industry. In the UK, campaigners turned to law, questioning how councils and government could rely on a single un-evidenced ICNIRP certificate while refusing to assess actual risks.
Some councils – including Frome, Glastonbury, Wells, and Shepton Mallet – adopted the precautionary principle, recognising their duty to protect residents. Yet they were warned they could refuse a mast only on siting grounds, not health. The government’s position was – and remains – that “you cannot set health safeguards other than ICNIRP.” As a result, councils were told not to include evidence of harm in their planning decisions.
This approach seemed fundamentally inconsistent with planning law and public-health duties. Campaigners therefore began to untangle how precaution is established in law and how decision-making could be challenged when it fails to reconcile health risks.
Neil McDougall, with qualifications in planning and as an NHS administrator who has fought for the rights of mental-health in-patients, helped to untangle these legal contradictions with Karen Churchill.
The Legal Journey So Far
Neil McDougall and Karen Churchill met at a lecture by Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe (a specialist expert with the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields – ICBE-EMF ) and began a step-by-step legal journey that continues today. Their series of judicial reviews has exposed critical gaps in how local and central government regulate EMF exposure. The failure to correct these gaps is now before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
These challenges have revealed unacceptable inconsistencies between rulings, while the UK government – under EU Exit law – has until June 2026 to resolve incompatibilities between domestic law and retained EU obligations.
The legal lever being used now is the duty to align UK law with the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), which requires local authorities to reconcile health risks before approving new wireless infrastructure.
Under EECC Annex I(3)(b) and Article 45(h), public health must be treated as imperative, and risk reconciliation must occur before deciding whether to impose a health condition. Yet both local authorities and courts have systematically avoided this obligation.
Key Inconsistencies Between Cases
Cheltenham v AA5G (2023) – The AA5G claim was brought by Vicky Angell, Karen Churchill, and Rosalyn Rock, with supporting legal and evidential groundwork from Neil McDougall. It was the first national challenge to the Government’s reliance on ICNIRP certification and failure to assess public-health risks under the EECC. The Court restricted its scope before the scientific risk grounds could be heard, preventing consideration of individual health vulnerabilities such as those associated with metal implants.
When the Cheltenham case later reached the courts, that very risk — the potential interaction between EMF exposure and metal implants — was acknowledged but left unremedied. Had the Government been held to account under EECC Article 6(2), which requires it to empower local authorities to assess such risks as competent authorities, Judge Jarman would not have been left to attempt an ad hoc assessment of risk unsupported by expert evidence. His decision not to quash the mast omitted reference to the fact that the resident with metal implants was located within an exclusion zone, undermining the coherence and proportionality of his reasoning.
Brighton (Springgay, 2021) — The case concluded by consent order in which the Council accepted, at ground (f)(ii), that it had “failed to address the health impacts of this particular proposal and to obtain adequate evidence of the assessment of the proximity to the school and the amended proposal” (Consent Order 4/11/2021, ref BH2021/01639).
While a concession is not binding precedent, it is a formal acknowledgement by the authority that proximity and health impacts require adequate evidential assessment, and it can be cited persuasively. The later Cheltenham judgment, however, held that the GPDO/NPPF contain no instruction to examine exclusion zones, creating a practical inconsistency. That inconsistency underpins our Rights, Remedies and Regulation action, calling on Government to align planning practice with the EECC by requiring proximity/exclusion-zone evidence and risk reconciliation before permission is granted.
Cheltenham Appeal (2025) – Judge Andrews ruled that the EECC is part of the regulatory framework, directly contradicting Judge Falk’s ruling in the Rights, Remedies and Regulation case that it is not. This is a fundamental unresolved contradiction central to the latest ECHR challenge — running in parallel with the “last chance to remedy the gaps” submission now being filed with central government departments by Neil and Karen.
An Upper Tribunal decision (2022) has confirmed that Electro-Sensitivity (also known as Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity) can amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010. In this case, an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) was upheld on that basis, establishing that exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can substantially limit normal day-to-day activities and trigger disabling symptoms.
As an Upper Tribunal decision, this has High Court status and is binding on the First-tier Tribunal and persuasive on other public authorities, including local councils, when exercising statutory functions. It therefore provides authoritative recognition that persons with EHS are protected under the Equality Act and that public bodies have duties to make reasonable adjustments and to avoid discrimination arising from EMF exposure.
Phiremedical.org – Educational Health Care Plan awarded to school girl with EHS.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62f3997ed3bf7f5c11330ea3/ua-2022-000328-hs__002_.pdf
The initial ruling in the AA5G case — which refused permission to judicially review the Government’s failure to assess health risk — came before the 2022 Upper Tribunal EHCP decision confirming that electro-sensitivity can amount to a disability. Had that precedent been available earlier, the Court’s approach to the dismissed grounds might well have been different, as it establishes that public authorities have a recognised duty to make reasonable adjustments for individuals affected by electromagnetic exposure.
Avoidance and Denial
Throughout these cases, the courts and government have repeatedly avoided addressing the public-health-imperative legal obligation set within the EECC:
- In AA5G, Mrs Justice Stacey was limited to considering only the government’s duty to inform and monitor , Michael Mansfield was instructed specifically by the Court not to bring science to the hearing – courts are generally avoidant of what they deem as “scientific disputes” so his hands were tied and the reality or true risk was effectively suppressed. Judge Lang refusing permission on the original grounds challenging the government unlawfulness of not providing their own risk assessment ahead of the 5G roll out was seen by Michael Mansfield as the ‘…the worst case of intellectual dishonesty I have seen…’
- In Cheltenham, Judge Jarman avoided mentioning the EECC altogether, even though it was pleaded in full detail.
- Judge Andrews later included EECC duties in her ruling, exposing earlier judicial avoidance and confirming that the EECC does form part of the applicable legal framework.
Within the same week as effectively sanctioning the siting of a mast within a residential exclusion zone, Judge Jarman refused permission in the Rights, Remedies and Regulation case. He therefore concurrently endorsed the Government’s failure to empower local authorities to carry out risk assessments under the EECC, including the consideration of exclusion-zone evidence. His reasoning — that Cheltenham Borough Council had no duty to check exclusion zones because they had not been instructed to do so — could have been resolved by granting permission and activating those very obligations. Instead, the decision left a circular logic intact, insulating the system from scrutiny. Judge Jarman appeared reluctant to be the one to disrupt the industry-controlled status quo. The outcome was that a resident was left living within a radiation exclusion zone, despite the evidence being before the court — an outcome that should trouble anyone who values judicial and public accountability.
This pattern — of avoidance, denial, and inconsistency — lies at the heart of the Rights, Remedies and Regulation case now heading to the ECHR.
The Central Question
Where does the lawful responsibility to assess EMF risks sit?
What must central government do, and what falls to local authorities as competent authorities?
The EECC is clear:
- Public health must be treated as imperative.
- Risk reconciliation must occur before any permission is granted.
- Annex I(3)(b) affords local authorities both the power and obligation to set a health condition before granting permission — contrary to the government mantra that “health is not a valid reason to refuse.”
This was demonstrated in Mendip, where the council refused permission stating they “lacked enough evidence of safety to proceed.” That isolated decision shows there is a lawful pathway for autonomous risk assessment and health based refusals — and this pathway must now be asserted.
Standing Up for Lawful Decision-Making
The UK campaign has been tireless in objecting to masts and small-cell installations across the country — and this persistence has revealed how the system fails to protect public health. But it has also shown that the law is on our side.
On 21 July 2025, just ten days before the House of Lords’ summer recess, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch quietly announced a major shift in telecoms policy:
“We will consider areas where planning laws and guidance might be changed to facilitate the deployment of mobile masts. To that end, we will publish a call for evidence on Permitted Development Rights as soon as possible. Subject to feedback received, any resulting measures designed to enable faster deployment of telecommunications infrastructure will be implemented as quickly as possible.”
— House of Lords Written Statement HLWS866 (21 July 2025)
This signals an intention to remove or weaken prior-approval safeguards — effectively deregulating mast deployment and silencing local oversight. That makes it more urgent than ever to assert our rights and insist that public-health protection remains a legal prerequisite to any planning decision.
Campaigner and councils must now demand transparency on exclusion zones — the most basic form of public protection — and require that operators provide accurate, verifiable coverage maps. Without these, no decision can lawfully be described as evidence-based and more residents may suffer the same fate as the resident in the Cheltenham Case.
Authorities should also be enforcing the auditory/ sensory exposure limits — existing withing 1999/519/EC — as part of the EECC Annex I(3)(b) duty to reconcile risks before granting permission. Protection for those with implants, tinnitus, or EHS is not optional; it is intrinsic to lawful and proportionate planning. Inform the council of the public health imperative within the EECC, their obligation to make an evidence based risk assessment. (sample letter below)
Inform them that the sensory limit is not being recorded in Ofcom surveys and yet the surveys indicate there are already breaches in the UK which makes it essential they ensure the public are protected from this ‘biological effect’ which ICNIRP themselves acknowledge in their ICNIRP 2020 Principles Statement can lead to an ‘adverse health effect’ (those terms are important legally).
The impact of wireless radiation to those with metal can be material and when evidenced fully should be taken into account, according to the Cheltenham ruling. This ruling broke the ‘ICNIRP certificate only’ mantra, and please keep reminding your LPA that the certificate is not the reliable backstop they assume it to be.
Not everyone needs to follow the complex legal detail — what matters is that we all use the progress made.
The Mendip decision proves there is a lawful pathway to refuse on health grounds. The inconsistencies across rulings show a continuing resistance to accepting and enforcing the EECC public-health imperative. Neil and Karen are continuing to hold local authorities, the Government, and now the UK courts to account — using those very inconsistencies to demand clarity on the legal obligations of planning authorities to conduct proper risk assessments.
Every objection, every letter, every question to a councillor builds the record of lawful resistance that will hold this government to account.
So, let us all keep going – use the legal progress already achieved. The more they seek to avoid their obligations and now to deregulate, the stronger our duty becomes to invoke the law and assert our rights.
Please use the example objection letter:
Support the Ongoing Legal Challenge
This campaign and the Rights, Remedies and Regulation case are being sustained entirely by public donations. Every contribution helps with court fees, and submissions now being made to government and the European Court of Human Rights.
If you value independent action holding government to account for failing to protect public health, please consider making a contribution via the GoFundMe page:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/admin-fees-for-litigants-in-person
Further Resources
