A top campaign priority for now is NPPF consultation closing 10 March, please use the attached for suggested replies:
Here is latest news, 03.03.26, from the RRR team ( Neil and Karen) as work continues:
On 18 February 2026, we filed a further formal submission to Government under section 7 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. This submission seeks administrative resolution of the unresolved operationalisation of the EECC risk-reconciliation framework that we have previously outlined in earlier updates.
Our submissions of 26 November 2025 and 14 January 2026 remain unanswered. Whether the absence of response reflects administrative delay or a substantive position is not yet clear. What remains clear is that the underlying regulatory contradiction has not been resolved.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the European Electronic Communications Code (Directive (EU) 2018/1972) forms part of the operative domestic legal framework. The issue now is how the planning-stage risk-reconciliation functions contemplated by that framework are to be operationalised in practice.
What This Submission Documents
Our February submission sets out a contradiction in the official record concerning who performs the competent-authority functions required under the EECC general authorisation system.
These are documented positions from Government guidance, local authorities, Parliament, and the Court of Appeal.
1. The Court of Appeal Confirmed the EECC Forms Part of Domestic Law
In Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 259, Andrews LJ confirmed that Directive (EU) 2018/1972 forms part of the operative domestic legal framework, including Annex I public-health conditions attached to general authorisations.
This means the EECC framework is binding within the domestic system.
2. Transposition Guidance Identified Local Authorities
In December 2020, immediately before the transposition deadline, Welsh Government implementation guidance stated:
“we consider that the national competent authority in this respect is the local authority”
and added:
“this view is shared by the UK Government and the other Devolved Administrations.”
At the point of implementation, Local Planning Authorities were recognised as performing competent-authority functions within the EECC deployment framework.
3. Local Authorities Have Exercised Risk-Reconciliation in Practice
In 2022, Mendip District Council confirmed:
“LPAs are ‘competent authorities’ responsible for giving effect to the EECC…”
When determining a 5G mast application, the Planning Board refused permission on public-health grounds — notwithstanding ICNIRP certification.
The environmental and public-health reconciliation occurred within the planning decision itself.
Ofcom had no role in that site-specific evaluation. In practical terms, the planning authority was the only body performing the reconciliation function contemplated by Recitals 105–106 and Article 45(2)(h).
4. Parliamentary Confirmation Preserved LPA Status
In June 2021, Matt Warman MP stated in Parliament:
“the transposition of the EECC would have no effect on the status of local planning authorities where they are considered competent authorities…”
That statement preserved LPA status under the EECC framework.
5. Subsequent Departmental Position
More recently, a Departmental response has asserted that Ofcom is the sole designated telecoms national regulatory authority. However, Ofcom has confirmed that it:
does not exercise planning or siting functions;
does not determine planning applications;
does not review site-specific ICNIRP assessments used in planning decisions.
6. The Regulatory Tension
These positions cannot sit together.
If:
The EECC forms part of domestic law (confirmed by the Court of Appeal);
Local Planning Authorities were identified as competent authorities at transposition;
LPAs in practice perform site-specific risk reconciliation at the planning stage;
Parliament was told their status was unaffected;
but
Government now asserts that Ofcom alone performs the regulatory role — despite Ofcom having no planning function, then the operational coherence of the general authorisation system remains unresolved.
Contradictory official positions cannot remain on record without administrative resolution where they affect the functioning of assimilated law.
What Resolution Requires
This submission does not seek new legislation. It seeks administrative operationalisation of the general authorisation system already in place.
Specifically:
- Clear confirmation of which authority performs the planning-stage competent-authority functions;
- Defined criteria for compliance with Annex I public-health conditions;
- Transparent procedures for consultation and risk assessment;
- Coherent coordination between national regulatory functions and local planning control.
Contradictory positions in the official record cannot simply remain without resolution where they affect the operation of assimilated law.
We have therefore invited Government to address the matter administratively and to clarify how the EECC risk-reconciliation framework is to function coherently in practice.
