header-logo header-logo

01 October 2020
Issue: 7905 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

5G rollout planning rules challenged

Legal action has been launched against the government for abandoning planning permission requirements for 5G mobile phone masts, antennae and cell towers

The government scrapped the requirement in July as the UK prepared for the rollout of 5G. However, campaigners this week lodged an application for judicial review against the decision.

The campaigners argue the government failed to give ‘conscientious consideration’ to consultation responses and that information on the adverse health effects of prolonged exposure to man-made pulsed high frequency electromagnetic radiation was not presented to ministers. Specifically, they claim civil servants withheld vital information from the Secretaries of State as they made their decision to relax planning permission requirements to expedite the roll-out of 5G.

Moreover, they argue the rollout of the technology before potential adverse effects can be independently assessed engages the EU’s ‘precautionary principle’, which would place the onus on the government to prove the technology is safe rather than on the public to prove harm.

The legal challenge is being brought by two campaigners and lawyer Jessica Learmond-Criqui, of Learmond Criqui Sokel, against the Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport.

Learmond-Criqui said: ‘It is clear that the consultation process has been completely undermined: the government has now admitted that the scientific evidence about adverse health concerns submitted by these campaigners was never presented to the ministers making the decision. 

‘When questions about risk to public health have been raised, it is simply not right for civil servants to take it upon themselves to withhold vital scientific and other evidence.’  

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll