Cheltenham Borough Council’s attempts to overturn the recent court ruling dismissed by the Appeal court.  Please see enclosed review and important points by ACHES.  This is useful information when challenging telecom phone mast applications.  Download link or pdf file and send to your local councillors and planning officials.  👇

Local Councils and Telecom Mast Planning Adjudication

‘A correction of the misapprehension that evidence of adverse health effects is to be excluded in such adjudication

The key to understanding the current state of Telecom Mast adjudication in the UK, lies in the misconception that officers and councillors cannot include health factors when they are considering telecom mast planning applications.

This misconception rests in the false belief of many council officers and councillors that they must obey the NPPF and any ICNIRP guidance therein, and that this is mandatory and so they have absolutely no choice but to do so.

This is a most profound and fundamental misconception and it was drawn attention to in the Supreme Court by Lord Gill who reprimanded the Suffolk Coastal District Council for treating the NPPF as law, and when it is not.

The NPPF is only policy and any ICNIRP guidance contained therein, is as it says, just guidance.

This is the key sentence in Lord Gill`s ruling :

‘the guidance given by the Framework (the NPPF) is not to be interpreted as if it were a statute. Its purpose is to express general principles on which decision-makers are to proceed in pursuit of sustainable development.’ (Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd) As we will see in the Swisscom patent application, the telecom industry declared the telecom mast technology to be carcinogenic – so it is hard to consider such as “sustainable development”……

Continue reading here:   Telecom Mast Planning Adjudication