Over the last 3 years a few milestones have been reached, even though judicial challenges have been fraught.
- The award of an EHCP to a school girl with EHS, via a Tier 3 Tribunal, also disability awards approved after actions by PHIRE medical.
- Brighton Council backed off on proximity of a mast to a school, when they didn’t have an ICNIRP certificate 2021. The council had to pay £13k costs after losing the case against them.
- A refusal of a 5G mast on health grounds in Mendip 2022.
- 99 masts refused in Bristol, Mr Christie’s 75% refusals achieved on 100 applications this year in the UK. Last year over 50% percent refusal rate was seen across the country, with up to 70% historically. We don’t know for sure how many of these decisions were based on a concern about health as well. The official reasons tend to remain ‘siting and appearance’.
- Judge Jarman recognised the need to take the effect on metal implants into account at a JR for a case in Cheltenham 2024.
- Stroud Council recently acknowledged the necessity of having sight of the public exclusion zones and the antenna power output. When the applicant refused to provide these it was weighed as a lack of evidence of safety in Stroud’s risk benefit analysis of the application and the mast was refused. “Insufficient information has been submitted in relation to the benefits of the upgrade over the existing and proposed infrastructure performance as well as existing and proposed output and exclusion zones in relation to EMFs, to enable the LPA to understand the full benefit and potential harm of the proposed development. The applicant/agent refused the LPA request for this additional information. Thus, based on the application submission, the non-evidenced connectivity public benefit does not outweigh the identified heritage harm…”
- DLUHC did not remove all planning obligations when they wanted to 2 years ago, during their update of the NPPF. Prior Approval still requires some assessment in situ (siting and appearance) for new applications.
- The UK now has information about non-thermal effects which they wouldn’t have if not for us sharing letters, news, outreach and mast objections
- Growing awareness that the LPA (local authority) must risk assess even though they deny it. The government have been legally challenged about policy not enforcing local risk assessment and not requiring full data spec of masts to be made available. (per Stroud case above)
- EU law directly applies. All defence of this has led to more proof that it applies. Administration provisions became active in 2018 at the moment of signing the Brexit agreement. The previous 2009/140/EC, 2014/61/EC directives ceased in that moment, and so from then on those functions were covered by the EECC, they did not depend on the transposition of EU Law in Dec 2020. As competent authorities, LPAs are obliged to protect public health, particularly under the 2018/1972/EC Directive and Article 45)2h. It is ALSO important to note that the 1999/519/EC Recommendations are procedural standards which must be adhered to and they are written on the back of every ICNIRP Certificate.
- Campaigners have been pushing against mis-leading policy guidance in 121/122 of the NPPF, and presenting to Planners that they need to make evidence-based decisions, we are starting to see recognition of this with the Stroud result (above).
- In Swansea the EU law and competent authority status has been re-inforced by the advice issued to LAs by the government. “Notification Requirements Article 3(3) of the Implementing Regulation states that operators who have deployed SAWAPs (Regulation 2020/1070 small cell systems) of class E2 or E10 (as defined in the European Standards 62232:2017) shall notify the national competent authority within two weeks from the deployment of each such point about its installation and location as well as the requirements they have met in terms of its characteristics and appearance. We consider that the national competent authority in this respect is the local planning authority. This view is shared by the UK Government and the other Devolved Administrations.“
From this 10 December 2020 document.
https://www.gov.wales/changes-town-and-country-planning-general-permitted-development-order-1995-html
It’s value is not so much in what it requires Councils to do in itself, but that it demonstrates that they have ongoing public health protection obligations designed into the European Electronic Communications Code 2018. Those obligations cant be ignored nor trivialised.
