Telecommunications mast — Planning permission — Refusal of permission to install and extend transmission equipment — Application to quash planning inspector’s decision — Whether inspector misconstruing government policy document PPG 8 — Whether inspector failing to give adequate reasons — Application granted
The claimants were developers who wished to install and extend certain telecommunications transmission equipment at Harrogate. Their application for planning permission was refused by the second defendant, as local planning authority, on the basis that the proposed mast and headframes, due to their bulk and massing notwithstanding the existing installation, would unreasonably detract from the residential amenity of the nearby dwelling houses and the amenity of the local facilities such as to conflict with policies of the district local plan.
A planning inspector appointed by the first defendant did not uphold the original refusal on amenity grounds since he considered that the adverse impact of the proposal would be slight and the probable amenity of mast-sharing would outweigh any harm that might be caused visually by the replacement mast. However, the grounds relied upon by the inspector for dismissing the appeal related to the perception of health risks. He concluded that the proposal provided insufficient reassurance that there could be no material harm to the living conditions (in terms of health concerns) of children at nearby schools.
The claimants applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash that decision, on the basis that, on a proper interpretation of government planning policy, PPG 8 (dealing with planning aspects of telecommunications), which the inspector purported to apply, sufficient reassurance was provided by confirmation that the guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) had been complied with, and that the inspector did not give an adequate reason for his conclusion that insufficient reassurances had been provided in this case.
Held: Application granted.
The guidance contained in PPG 8 was perfectly clear and there was nothing open-ended about government policy in this respect. There was no doubt that the claimants’ present proposals met the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, and that it was made clear to all concerned that there would be no material harm to the living conditions (in terms of health concerns) to young children. It was also clear that the claimants had given sufficient reassurances about that.
Regrettably, the inspector appeared to have misunderstood government planning policy as set out in PPG 8 and had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision. Accordingly, the inspector’s decision would be quashed and the appeal remitted for reconsideration by the first defendant.
Christopher Katkowski QC and Galina Ward (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) appeared for the claimants; Philip Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; The second defendant did not appear and was not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
