A local authority’s failure to properly consider the potential impact of electronic communications equipment on medical implants was an error which caused unnecessary public concern.
The Administrative Court has considered this issue in Steven Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council and another [2024] EWHC 1035 (Admin).
The case concerned a challenge to the council’s decision as local planning authority that prior approval was not required for a proposed development of ECE comprising a 15-metre pole with antennas, ground-based apparatus and ancillary development on a grass verge within Cheltenham’s central conservation area.
The application was made by CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Ltd, trading as Three and determined under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015 which allows for the installation, alteration or replacement of electronic communications apparatus within certain height and size limits.
The supplementary document accompanying the application contained a certificate of compliance with the requirements of the radio frequency public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection in compliance with EU Council recommendations on the limitation of public exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Notice of the application was served on adjoining owners or occupiers and their representations taken into account in the local planning authority’s decision that its prior approval was not required as to the siting and appearance of the development.
50 objections were made including by residents of Lefroy Court, a residential building for those aged 55 years or over, around 100 metres from the proposed development site, where many residents had medical implants including pacemakers and hearing aids which ICNIRP guidance stated need protection.
The authority’s report of May 2023 which recommended that prior approval was not required noted objections on health grounds but did not deal with the specific concerns of residents of Lefroy Court and gave no or little weight to them.
The court accepted that the authority was entitled to take the view that the declaration of conformity with the guidelines was sufficient to deal with the medical concerns of those closest to the proposed development but it should have grappled with the objections of residents of Lefroy Court concerning the potential impact of electromagnetic fields on medical implants. Its failure to do so was an error and the challenge succeeded.
However, there was no evidence either that the proposed equipment would generate strong electromagnetic fields or to show the potential impact on medical implants. So, had the issue been properly addressed, it was highly likely that the outcome would have been the same but public concerns may well have been allayed.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
