5G,Articles,Legal,Mobile Phone Masts,News,Phone Masts & How to Object |

Medical implants and 5G planning decisions

🔥 Cheltenham Borough Council’s appeal has been dismissed in a new ruling.

The Council appealed against the 2024 court decision that said “the authorities failure to address potential impacts on medical implants was an error, as EMFs could interfere with the function of such implants.” https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/663a735283075d3d98341c7b

🔥 Latest Court Decision

👇
Steven Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council & Anor
[2025] EWCA Civ 259

‘Mr Thomas complained that the Council’s Planning Officer, whose report (“the OR”) and recommendation were adopted by the Council, had failed to address specific concerns raised by Mr Thomas and by another person about the effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (“EMFs”) on medical implants such as pacemakers and hearing aids.’

CONCLUSION

📌 39. For those reasons, I consider that the Judge was right to identify that the Planning Officer fell into error.”

For those reasons, I would dismiss this appeal.

👇

Full report from Case Law available to download here:  Steven Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council & Anor – Find Case Law – The National Archives

 

https://rfinfo.co.uk/monthly-news/ Good news re 5G Mast regulation –
‘Steven Thomas and Karen Churchill were successful at the Court of Appeal, defeating Cheltenham Borough Council’s appeal. A zoom will be organised for people to understand the judgment and its effects so that it is not misrepresented.
The wider and more important issue of exclusion zones in this particular case have not been addressed, leaving vulnerable residents relegated inside a non-compliant zone a mere 17m away. Steven, Karen and Neil are filing further appeals with the Supreme Court to further assert the activation of EECC and domestic planning law obligation to establish effective public health protection.
The appeal, which the council had instigated themselves using tax payers’ money, cost them almost £60k. All in all, taking into account the costs at the lower court, this figure is in the region of £100k.’