Navigating 4/5G mast objections

The Government (whoever that may be post-4 July) will undoubtedly still encourage and promote, via the planning system, the wireless infrastructure agenda for the UK. Lots of us want and rely on this technology, yet the siting and installation of the masts and equipment required to support the system still raises objections. Most of the population wants the technology, just not to have the masts and equipment installed near our homes and locality.

Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council [2024] EWCH 1035 (Admin), decided on 11 April 2024, is a case that serves as a good reminder that in making decisions, potential impacts raised by objectors, even where fairly unique points are raised, are capable of being planning material considerations.

The Court found that the authority’s failure to address the potential impacts of the proposed equipment on individuals with medical implants constituted an error. The court refused to grant relief to Mr. Thomas based on the absence of evidence showing strong Electric Magnetic Fields (EMFs) would be generated by the proposed equipment.

Without getting technical about the equipment (not a job for a lawyer), we know telecommunication equipment, where it meets the ICNIRP standard, is considered safe for health. Where planning applications/prior approvals submission under the Schedule 2, Part 16, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) meet the standard there is usually limited discussion on this point. That is not to say an objector cannot raise “safe to health concerns”, just that the weight the decision maker affords to such issues in making decisions is limited where the telecommunication equipment proposed meets the standards.

In the Thomas case, the argument was that the decision-maker had not considered the impacts on medical implants of residents. In the facts of the case, there was an elderly person’s residential complex, where a number of residents (higher than average) had medical implants (e.g. pacemakers) but this was not the closest of residences to the siting of the mast.

The judge stated that if this elderly person’s complex had been closer then it might have been a factor for resisting the equipment when considering any potential EMF impacts. The “error” was that any potential impacts on these specific circumstances (i.e. medical implants) had not been taken into account by the LPA when the decision was made. None of this however changed the outcome/decision in Thomas, when the court considered all the evidence.

The judgment as you would expect is not saying what weight should be placed on specific planning considerations which is of course for the decision maker.

Rachel Lee is a Managing Associate at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

This video is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email enquiries@sharpepritchard.co.uk