Health Risk

Perception of Health Risk – Mobile Phone Masts
This is just an extract but gets over the gist of the argument …..

The first thing to remember about phone masts, the planning system and adverse health effects is that it does not matter about proving there is a risk.

It is not a question of the proof is in the eating, in fact quite the reverse. If you could prove an adverse health effect, then there are other forms of legislation, and policing of the threat, such as the process for statutory nuisance under the Environment Act 1995, or the powers available to the Heath and Safety Executive.

The only issue that is a material planning consideration is the FEAR, or perception that the local community hold that there is an adverse health effect. You have therefore too clearly get the message over to the planners that it really does not matter about any proof, you have the required degree of fear.

Far too often local planning officers tell the public that health is NOT a material planning consideration. That is a factually incorrect statement. Health, or the fear, is a material consideration and MUST be taken into account. Any decision that fails to take health into account will be contrary to law.

That has now been demonstrated to be wrong in law in four separate High Court cases. These are the significant cases that we have all been waiting for. Unfortunately far too many masts have been approved that, had health been taken into account, would not have been.

It is now not possible for any local authority to argue that health is NOT a material planning consideration without running the risk of having decision overturned, and thereby costing the local council tax payers tens of thousands in wasted court costs.

First it must be clearly kept in mind that Government Planning Policy Guidance Notes are just that guidance. Although they cannot be ignored, they are not so rigid that they must be followed to the letter

Read the full version on

It takes a bit of time but you’ll find it really worthwhile.