A top campaign priority for now is NPPF consultation closing 10 March, please use the attached for suggested replies:
2-Minute Action – 5G Planning Policy Is Changing
Assert Your Right to Public Health Protection
Send a quick copy-and-paste email to demand public health protections are strengthened.
Reply to the government consultation by:
📧 Email: PlanningPolicyConsultation@communities.gov.uk
Subject: Response to NPPF Consultation – Question 95
Deadline: March 10
✉ Copy and paste this:
I strongly disagree with the proposed drafting of CO1 and CO2.
The current wording allows public health compliance to be treated as satisfied by self-certification, without defined evidential standards or scrutiny. Certain risks — including those affecting individuals with metal implants — fall outside the scope of the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines.
A year-long scientific review by the New Hampshire Commission recommended that new wireless antennas be placed at least 500 metres from homes, schools and workplaces, based on the evidence (New Hampshire Commission, 2020 Final Report). Proximity to masts and small cells should not therefore be treated as automatically immaterial at planning stage.
Here is an MP letter template which could be sent before end of close of NPPF and adapted for after close.
Dear MP,
How close telecommunications masts and small cells are placed to homes, flats and schools may matter to you as well as to your constituents. It certainly matters to me. When telecommunications equipment is placed very close to residential property it can feel overbearing and unsightly, reduce the value of a home, and – most importantly – when it is too close it can affect peoples health.
The minimum protection I expect is that siting decisions properly respect the governments chosen exposure guideline, ICNIRP. According to industry technical documentation (MBNL), the ICNIRP non-compliant area – the exclusion zone – is typically in the region of 25–50 metres horizontally from a macro mast and approximately 5–8 metres vertically below the antenna head.
The exclusion zone diagrams prepared by Telecoms, underpinning the certificate of compliance, are currently not required to be supplied with the planning application. Errors have occurred where these zones have been found to penetrate adjacent properties.
The proposed wording (CO1(2)) states that ‘local planning authorities should not require minimum distances to be maintained between telecommunications infrastructure and other development‘.
That wording prevents proximity from being examined as a regulatory control at the point of siting. I therefore request that you consider taking the following steps:
- Submit a response to the current NPPF consultation (particularly Question 95) to ensure that exclusion zones and proximity impacts are properly examined at planning stage:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-planning-policy-framework-proposed-reforms-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system - If there is a further consultation to expand permitted development rights for telecommunications infrastructure, oppose any reduction in prior approval requirements.
- Ensure that the proposed CO1 and CO2 policies — or the current NPPF paragraphs 119–123 — are not elevated to statutory National Development Management Policy (NDMP) status, as this would allow national policy to override local planning control over how close masts and small cells are placed to homes and schools.
The proposed policy wording (CO1(2)) preventing examination of distance conflicts with a judicial finding.
In Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council (2023) the High Court confirmed that proximity combined with specific vulnerability — in this case the presence of medical implants/pacemakers — was capable of influencing siting decisions (para 46). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/2182.html
In the subsequent appeal, the Court of Appeal (Andrews LJ) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/104.html) expressly recognised that Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (the EECC) forms part of the governing legal framework. Although the United Kingdom has left the European Union, the relevant provisions now form part of retained (assimilated) law.
The consultation also invites views on impacts on protected groups under the Public Sector Equality Duty (see “Public Sector Equality Duty”, Questions 224–225, p.123 of the NPPF consultation -closing March 10th). A tribunal has recognised that electromagnetic hypersensitivity may require accommodation within public authority decision-making. In EAM v East Sussex County Council [2022] UKUT 193 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal required a council to secure an Education, Health and Care Plan for a child who was hypersensitive to Wi-Fi signals and required a low-electromagnetic environment for schooling. This illustrates that vulnerability to electromagnetic exposure can be material in public authority decision-making and should not be treated as displaced by ICNIRP certification alone.
The compatibility gap between the EECC public health framework and domestic planning practice has been formally raised with Government Departments in submissions dated 26 November 2025 and 14 January 2026 (McDougall / Churchill). Those submissions requested that the relevant Departments engage in an Alternative Dispute Resolution / mediation process so that the issue could be addressed constructively.
The current NPPF reform process and the REULA transition framework — including the Government’s obligations and powers under section 7 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 — provide a limited opportunity to resolve the incompatibility between assimilated EECC obligations and domestic planning practice before 23 June 2026, when the remaining transition arrangements affecting retained EU law are expected to conclude.
I would therefore be grateful for your prompt support in helping to resolve this matter with the relevant Departments, and for your reply confirming what steps you are able to take.
Yours sincerely,
