EMAIL template for you to send to your council

To: Council Leader; Head of Planning; Director of Public Health, Legal Department
Cc: Local Councillors, MP

Subject: How close is too close? Regulation of Wireless Radiation

Dear [Council Leader / Planning Head / etc.],

I recently became aware of a letter sent to another council about the implications of a recent 5G court case. I’m forwarding it to you because I believe the questions
“How close is too close?”
and
“Who decides?”
are important for this authority to consider.

The rulings in the case confirm that risks to individuals with metal in their bodies are a legally relevant consideration. This means an ICNIRP-only policy is no longer sufficient. However, the judgment does not make clear how such risks are to be assessed in mast siting decisions—or when those risks become significant enough to influence the outcome. The judge’s arbitrary decision on distance and effect is now being appealed to the Supreme Court.

I care about this because

[INSERT YOUR OWN PERSONAL REASON, for example:]
– I or someone I know has metal in the body (e.g. fillings, plates, pacemaker, implants);
– I live close to a mast and want to know where the exclusion zones are;
– I experience symptoms such as tinnitus, headaches, or pressure sensations that seem related to wireless exposure;
– I believe my symptoms may be linked to the “microwave hearing” or auditory effect,

Here is a summary of the letter

Summary of Key Legal and Regulatory Points:

In Cheltenham BC v. MBNL, Judge Jarman confirmed that planning authorities must consider risks to residents with metal or medical implants—though the ruling does not clarify how or when this should affect a siting decision.

UKHSA confirms that people with metal in their bodies should not enter ICNIRP public exclusion zones.

Judge Andrews confirmed that obligations under the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) form part of the UK’s legal framework.

The rulings affirm that planning decisions must take “utmost account” of Recommendation 1999/519/EC.

1999/519/EC includes a specific limit to safeguard against the microwave auditory (hearing)

EECC (Annex I.3(b)) obligates/empowers LPAs to set a health condition on mast decisions after precautionary risk reconciliation assessment (EECC 106,1999/519/EC p19)

Exposure Breaches - Ofcom exposure surveys have shown that UK emissions may in some cases exceed this auditory limit.

URGENT Call for action:

Local councils to publish ICNIRP public exclusion zones via planning portal

5G mast applications to include exclusion zone diagrams

Monitoring of exposures - microwave hearing limit - such that the LPA can fulfill risk reconciliation embedded in the EECC, now recognised as part of the regulatory framework.

Thank you for your consideration, I look forward to hearing from you regarding these urgent actions.

Exposures are increasing - becoming crystal clear on how regulation of those exposures sits in law is imperative. Legally the public should be safeguarded against microwave auditory (hearing) and yet this is not happening practically. I am happy to provide further references if you need them.

Yours sincerely,

xxx

Steven Thomas V Cheltenham Borough Council

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/259.pdf

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/67d3242e8e5e96188bafa060

Recital 106, Annex1 3 b) European Electronics Communications Code EECC

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32018L1972

Appendix 2.4 for ICNIRP Auditory limit

https://safetechinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/EECCsubmission12-9-2023-info-version.pdf