The Court of Appeal was recently called upon to consider whether concerns about the potential health effects of mobile phone masts could be a material consideration even though the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) had been met by the proposed developments in question.
In T-Mobile Ltd v First Secretary of State [2004] PLSCS 268, the inspector, on appeal, considered that, although the guidelines had been met, there was insufficient reassurance that no material harm would be caused to children at three nearby schools. In the High Court, the judge concluded that the inspector had misunderstood PPG 8, which he said clearly stated that where a planning proposal met the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, it was not possible, or necessary, to consider health considerations and public concern. The inspector had therefore failed to give adequate reasons for his decision to depart from that policy. The Court of Appeal agreed, and stated that the inspector had not been entitled either to find that there had been insufficient reassurance or consultation to the conclusion that he had.
This case indicates that the siting of mobile phone masts will remain a sensitive issue. Despite the government’s call for public consultation, the court’s decision to give judicial backing to site masts in the vicinity of schools, despite there being a perceived risk to health, suggests that, on balance, the developer will prevail.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
The Court of Appeal was recently called upon to consider whether concerns about the potential health effects of mobile phone masts could be a material consideration even though the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) had been met by the proposed developments in question.
In T-Mobile Ltd v First Secretary of State [2004] PLSCS 268, the inspector, on appeal, considered that, although the guidelines had been met, there was insufficient reassurance that no material harm would be caused to children at three nearby schools. In the High Court, the judge concluded that the inspector had misunderstood PPG 8, which he said clearly stated that where a planning proposal met the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, it was not possible, or necessary, to consider health considerations and public concern. The inspector had therefore failed to give adequate reasons for his decision to depart from that policy. The Court of Appeal agreed, and stated that the inspector had not been entitled either to find that there had been insufficient reassurance or consultation to the conclusion that he had.
This case indicates that the siting of mobile phone masts will remain a sensitive issue. Despite the government’s call for public consultation, the court’s decision to give judicial backing to site masts in the vicinity of schools, despite there being a perceived risk to health, suggests that, on balance, the developer will prevail.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
