The government did not provide a substantial response to the EECC submission filed on December 13th September 2023, so the Judicial Review application was crafted and filed with the Administrative Court on December 21st.

After the two potential defendants, Secretary of State for Health & Social Care (SofSHSC) and the Secretary for State for Levelling Up Housing & Communities (SofSLUHC), negotiated an extended deadline for replying to the 13th September submission, both failed to comment or counter the claims asserted in the submission.

Instead, they questioned whether they were the correct defendants, and suggested that it was possibly the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) who are responsible.

This position if it was true, should have been asserted when the submission was initially filed.

Their own particular obligations are clearly the subject-matter of the submission and their legal representatives formally acknowledged receipt of the submission and negotiated and extension in order to respond to it, so it is unacceptable that they then chose not to respond.

Certain elements of the submission were re-iterated with a reminder that the EECC submission had been sent to DSIT earlier in October. SofSLUHC and SofSHSC declined to respond to this final two-day opportunity to provide clarity.

This left Neil and Karen no other option other than to become claimants and pursue a Judicial Review against the both the SofSLUHC and SoSHSC, so they crafted and filed an application with the Administrative Court who sealed it on December 20th.

The Christmas and New year bank holidays gave them defendants reason to apply for another extension to respond to the sealed order, so a response is now expected by January 25th.

This case is citizen led i.e. there are no lawyers involved, Neil McDougall and Karen Churchill are representing themselves.

Please support them via the gofundme page as they now need cover their costs to continue with this vital challenge. 

Contact them via if you would like more information. Updates on the case will be posted on the gofundme page, on, and on,

Printable Flyer to share:

Keep on reading afterwards.

Further detail:

Many dedicated campaigners have exposed inconsistencies and procedural failures across different Councils, all precisely documented within the submission. This is an important aspect of this challenge because the courts can address procedural failure in relation to risk reconciliation whereas they are slow to engage with the science about the risk itself, as was seen in the Actionagainst5G case.

Currently, regulation is a scam. The ICNIRP guidelines are just guidance, as confirmed by Public Health England solicitors in August 2019, and yet they are being treated as a standard by local authorities. Risk reconciliation, which should be happening at the local level, is not happening.

The government states that involuntary exposure to wireless radiation is regulated by planning policy. Current planning policy effectively restricts the local authorities to not from performing any active risk assessment even though that function is directly assigned to them within the EECC. The government should have empowered and obligated the local authorities to perform risk reconciliation when the EECC was transposed into UK law in December 2020.

Even though the health implications of the transposition were raised by the AA5G legal team at the time, it is only now that Neil and Karen have collated enough evidence of multiple failures and are now in a strong position to make this challenge.

The Mendip Planning Board’s refusal of a 5G mast on health grounds is important evidence within the submission as it demonstrates that there is a reason and a legal pathway to refuse 5G masts on health grounds.

It demonstrates how the NPPF policy 118 can be superseded

The  Mendip Council’s planning case officer’s assumption that if the Planning Board solely apply government policy their EECC legal obligations would be fulfilled, was wrong. Case Officers across the country are making this wrong assumption.

The submission asserts that Telecoms’ specific environmental impact statements are necessary so that the local authorities can perform their EECC directly assigned risk reconciliation function meaningfully. Planning policy needs to be updated to acknowledge that requirement.

The power of this case is the emphasis on procedure and the government’s multiple failures to clarify the local authorities’ jurisdictional obligations;  the consequence of not doing so should be apparent to the judge.

Neil has carefully researched the 2018 EU Brexit Law to file this unique judicial review, as this law provided a three year window to make a challenge to restore rights from improperly enacted EU directives.

Such a challenge is only possible if there is an “Of a kind” legal case already having taken place. Neil identified such a case [comma taken out]and has carefully researched the meaning of “Of a kind”. This term is being hotly debated by esteemed barristers, such as Jack Williams, and is a matter of interpretation.

Pursuing this case is our last chance to force the government to fully implement local risk reconciliation and to restore our right to have our objections fully taken into account.

If successful, local authorities will be obligated to evaluate and fully account for evidence of risks of harm to the public and environment, so the case creates the opportunity to put non-thermal effects back on the table when decisions about 5G infrastructure are made.

Neil and Karen have worked voluntarily for four years, with some very welcome support from some close friends and campaigner colleagues. They now need wider support, as they need to ‘up their game’ with some of their expenses being met from campaigner donations.

Please use the gofundme page to offer them a donation.

MP’s and members of House of Lords comments to mast applications

This list could be helpful in showing how influence can be used where there is a will ! Also therefore how the planning system should work better, re the EECC challenge, to properly risk assess and represent objectors rights. It could also be useful to share when councillors say they can’t help or make a comment. The EECC challenge directly addresses reliance on NPPF.

Matt Warman MP for Boston & Skegness

 Matt Warman MP posted on facebook date: 6 September 2023

This intervention raises an important issue. If the planning process is indeed of such importance locally, such that Ministers can weigh in, then the councils must be empowered to require rational and comprehensive risk assessments from applicants and not lazily presume that an ICNIRP certificate demonstrates compatible use.

An update on 5G in Wrangle.

Over the summer, a number of residents contacted me about their concerns over a proposed 5G Mast in Wrangle, and many more attended a public meeting I convened in the Village Hall. I have contacted those people who signed up to be kept up to date on this issue, directly. 

In the course of that meeting, the vast majority of people expressed their desire to see improved mobile coverage in the village and across the county, and shared the ambition I pursued as a minister to see this happen rapidly. As I said then, I am confident this technology is being safely deployed in the UK, as it is being around the world as well.

It is, however, also the case that the positioning of masts is an emotive topic, and in order to maintain public confidence it’s important that networks get these decisions right. I am pleased that following my intervention, the Chief Executive of Three has agreed not to proceed with the proposed mast outside Wrangle Primary School, and has now committed to exploring other more suitable sites in the local area. While this may take some time, I will encourage the company to do so as rapidly as possible.

As always, my priority is to listen to and represent the views of my constituents and I’m glad to have been able to ensure action was taken in this case.”

Link to planning application:

Luke Pollard MP for Plymouth, Sutton & Devonport area of Plymouth

Here is the letter of objection he wrote.

local paper article and at refusal

The refusal decision included: “The proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful impact on the outlook of the occupants of that property, which would fail to safeguard their health, including mental health, and their amenity.”

Matt Rodda MP for Reading East  

A 20 metre telecoms mast and additional equipment cabinets on Caversham Park Road in Reading.  Went to Appeal APP/E0345/W/23/3319651 awaiting decision 

Local paper

Planning Link

Wera Hobhouse Bath MP

Lord Trefgarne objected to 15m pole close to where he lives.  Kettlewell Hill, Horsell, Woking GU21 4JA

His letter:

Link to planning application:

Sir Peter Bottomley MP for Worthing West

Facebook post 6 July 2021: 𝗦𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹:

I credit Cllr Richard Nowak, Salvington, for getting together with local residents to prevent the installation of an ‘eye-sore’ telephone mast at the side of the A27 overshadowing nearby bungalows.

We can welcome much needed digital infrastructure improvement across Worthing and Arun but proposals should be sympathetic and appropriate for the intended location. Proposers should always consider local residents when drafting plans. I support utilizing and improving already in situ infrastructure rather than littering our communities with masts and pillars.

I say to Government: listen to local councillors. They know the local area, they know the local residents and they know the local problems. This isn’t party politics, this is public representation. It’s about providing decent services to local people.”

Sarah Warren – Liberal Democrat Councillor for Bathavon North Ward

“Dear Development Management – Kevin and I, as the ward councillors, would like to request that the application numbered above, for a telecommunications mast in Charlcombe Parish, be brought to Planning Committee if the officers are minded to approve the application. There is significant local concern about the application on grounds not only of Its appearance in the World Heritage Site, but also around possible health implications of the roll out of 5G. Many thanks.”

Cllr Lorraine Francis – Bristol

“I would like to discuss this issue with planning, in more detail because there are concerns regarding the location of the proposed mast. The mast could potentially impact on the local infrastructure for the residents. Whilst I am unable to quantify objections regarding the masts impact on the health of the residents, I do feel that a proper consultation is required. Residents say that this type of mast has been rejected previously, so there must be a reason for this.”