The Cheltenham Cell Mast Case – Steven Thomas challenged the installation of a 15-meter telecommunications mast in Cheltenham’s Central Conservation Area. The case: [2025] EWCA Civ 259.
Mr. Thomas opposed the mast due to concerns about EMFs, particularly their effects on individuals with medical implants like pacemakers. The legal challenge was prompted by the decision of the Cheltenham Borough Council that the development did not need prior approval.
High Court Judgment (2024)
The High Court ruled in [2024] EWHC 1035 (Admin) that the council made an error by failing to consider the potential impact of EMF on individuals with medical implants. However, it denied relief, ruling that the final decision would have remained unchanged even if the issue had been addressed.
Court of Appeal Decision (2025)
Thomas appealed the ruling, but in [2025] EWCA Civ 259, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. While the council had made a procedural error, it did not affect the approval of the mast. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the council stood.
Winning the Battle but Losing the War
•The battle was won: The Cheltenham Cell Mast Case proved that Cheltenham Borough Council made a procedural error by failing to consider the impact of EMFs on individuals with medical implants.
•The war was lost: Despite this, the court did not overturn the decision by the council or stop the approval of the mast.
Public Health Concerns
This case underscores the need for local authorities to consider public health concerns, particularly for potentially vulnerable individuals, in telecom planning. However, it also shows that if the overall outcome is deemed justified, procedural errors may not change the final decision.
ICNIRP and RF- EMF Exposure Risks for Implants
RF- EMFs can interfere with active implants. This is acknowledged by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP considers such exposures outside the scope of its guidelines. Medical professionals and manufacturers are mostly responsible for the management. (Ref: Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz))
Everyday Devices
Smartphones, wearables, and audio devices emit electromagnetic fields. These fields can affect medical implants. For example, Apple advises users with pacemakers or defibrillators to maintain a safe distance from their devices. (Apple Support).
Key Takeaways:
- Councils should consider EMFs and medical implants—this case confirms that failing to do so can lead to legal challenges.
- However, overlooking these concerns may not always overturn a decision. The court ruled that officials would have approved the mast regardless.
- Future legal challenges may have a stronger case if it can be shown that the outcome could have been different had EMF risks regarding implants been considered.
- This case could set a legal precedent, encouraging councils to take specific EMF-related health concerns more seriously in planning decisions.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for specific legal concerns.
Related https://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/titanium-exposure-and-human-health/