THIS EMAIL IS ADDRESSED TO ALL WIRRAL COUNCILLORS AND MPs
Dear Councillor Paula Basnett (Leader), Councillor Stuart Kelly (Head of Planning Committee), Vicki Shaw (Legal Department), Dave Bradburn (Public Health), Marcus Shaw (Regeneration and Place)
I recently became aware of a letter sent to another council about the implications of a recent 5G court case. I’m highlighting 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 – such as that adopted by Councillor Stuart Kelly and others – 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 of the United Kingdom.
I care about this because I and people I know have metal / medical implants in my / their bodies and will be unfairly impacted.
Summary of Key Legal and Regulatory Points:
1. 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.
2. UKHSA confirms that people with metal in their bodies should not enter ICNIRP public exclusion zones.
3. Judge Andrews confirmed that obligations under the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) form part of the UK’s legal framework.
4.The rulings affirm that planning decisions must take “utmost account” of Recommendation 1999/519/EC.
5.1999/519/EC includes a specific limit to safeguard against the microwave auditory (hearing)
6.EECC (Annex I.3(b)) obligates / empowers Local Public Authorities to set a health condition on mast decisions after precautionary risk reconciliation assessment (EECC 106,1999/519/EC p19)
7.Exposure Breaches – Ofcom exposure surveys have shown that UK emissions may in some cases exceed this auditory limit.
URGENT Call for action
1. Local councils to publish ICNIRP public exclusion zones via planning portal
2. 5G mast applications to include exclusion zone diagrams
3. Monitoring of exposures – microwave hearing limit – such that the Local Public Authority can fulfil 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 – a requirement to become 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,
Paul Cardin
Wirral Residents Association
References
• Steven Thomas V Cheltenham Borough Council
• Recital 106, Annex1 3 b) European Electronics Communications Code EECC
• Appendix 2.4 Auditory limit
p.s. Attention, Councillor Stuart Kelly, Chair of Planning Committee. Please do not delete my emails as you previously threatened to do. Also, please unblock me on X. Innocent lives are at stake. Thank you, Paul
Paul Cardin
about.me/paulcardin
UPDATE – 7th July 2025
Reminder email sent today to the same councillors, MPs and senior officers:
Dear Wirral Councillors, MPs, Senior Officers,
Please acknowledge receipt of this important 5G-related email sent in the public interest on 14th June 2025, over three weeks ago,
kind regards,
Paul Cardin
Wirral Residents Association
www.wirralresidentsassociation.co.uk
| Paul Cardin about.me/paul.cardin |
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Amazon link
Wirral In It Together 