T Mobile (UK) Ltd & Ors v First Secretary of State & Anor

Where national planning policy states that compliance with specified public-exposure guidelines should ordinarily resolve health concerns in telecommunications planning applications, an inspector must correctly understand and apply that policy. The inspector may not require further general reassurance about health risks without explaining the policy basis for doing so. A decision must also give adequate reasons, identifying why the evidence and assurances provided are insufficient. A failure to understand the policy, or to explain the conclusion reached, renders the decision unlawful and liable to be quashed.

Telecommunications operators challenged an Inspector’s dismissal of their appeal against Harrogate Borough Council’s refusal of permission for replacement and extended mobile-phone transmission equipment. The challenge was brought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The operators alleged that the Inspector had misconstrued Government policy in Planning Policy Guidance 8 and had failed to give adequate reasons for finding that insufficient reassurance had been provided concerning health risks to children at nearby schools. The central issue was whether compliance with the ICNIRP public-exposure guidelines, together with the assurances given, satisfied the relevant policy.

1. Application allowed. The Inspector’s decision was quashed and the appeal was remitted to the First Defendant for reconsideration. The First Defendant was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs, with £12,000 payable on account within fourteen days.
2. The relevant Government policy in PPG8 was clear. It stated that, where a proposed mobile-phone base station met the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, it should not ordinarily be necessary for a local planning authority to consider further health aspects or concerns. The policy also limited the precautionary approach accepted from the Stewart Group’s report and did not authorise locally imposed precautionary restrictions.
3. The Inspector had been entitled to consider relevant planning matters, but he had to understand the policy correctly. The court accepted that the proposals met the ICNIRP guidelines and that the operators had provided sufficient reassurance that there would be no material harm to children’s living conditions in terms of health concerns.
4. The Inspector’s conclusion that the Government’s response was open-ended, and that the proposal provided insufficient reassurance, showed a misunderstanding of PPG8. The decision letter also failed to explain what further reassurance was required or why the assurances and certificates supplied were inadequate. It therefore contained both a policy misdirection and inadequate reasons.
5. The principles concerning proper understanding of policy and the need for clear reasons when departing from it, stated in EC Gransden & Co Ltd v First Secretary of State [1986] JPL 519, were applied.

The judgment itself records that the Inspector dismissed the claimants’ planning appeal by decision letter dated 30 December 2003. The Administrative Court quashed that decision and remitted the appeal for reconsideration. Permission to appeal was granted on the ground that the matter raised a compelling reason for an appeal because of its considerable public concern.