Harris v The First Secretary of State & Ors

Under Planning Policy Guidance 8: Telecommunications, compliance with ICNIRP public-exposure guidelines ordinarily answers objections based on direct health effects or perceived health risks. Departure from that policy requires exceptional circumstances and clear justification. Particular vulnerability is already addressed within the precautionary basis of the ICNIRP limits unless evidence shows an exceptional case. Interference with medical equipment is a separate issue. It becomes a material planning consideration only where there is clear evidence that significant interference will arise or probably arise and that no practicable remedy is available. Public concern alone does not satisfy that threshold. An inspector need not investigate further or impose conditions where the evidence does not cross the policy threshold. Alternative sites may be material, but reasons need address only the principal important controversial issues.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal and granting permission for a telecommunications mast. She relied on her exceptional medical condition and her dependence on an intravenous infusion pump. Her grounds concerned direct health effects, possible interference with medical equipment, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and alternative sites.

The inspector had concluded that the proposal complied with ICNIRP guidelines and that the health objections did not justify withholding permission. The central issues were whether the inspector had lawfully applied PPG 8, whether the medical-equipment issue crossed the policy threshold, whether the policy was compatible with Article 2, and whether alternative sites had been adequately considered.

1. The application was dismissed. The inspector had lawfully applied the policy in paragraph 98 of PPG 8. Following T-Mobile (UK) Limited v First Secretary of State [2004] EWCA (Civ.) 1763; [2005] Env.L.R. 364, compliance with ICNIRP guidelines ordinarily means that health aspects and public concern need not be considered further. Departure is possible only exceptionally and requires specific justification.

2. The policy had already taken account of vulnerable members of the public. The ICNIRP limits reflected the possibility of increased sensitivity among persons who are frail, elderly, very young, ill or taking medication affecting thermal tolerance. The evidence concerning the claimant did not establish circumstances exceptional enough to require departure from the policy.

3. Interference with medical equipment was distinct from direct health effects. Paragraph 102 of PPG 8 applied to electrical equipment of any kind, including medical devices. Paragraph 96 identified a source of specialist advice but did not remove medical devices from paragraph 102. The issue became relevant only on clear evidence that significant interference would arise or probably arise and that no practicable remedy was available. The material before the inspector amounted only to general assertions and did not meet that threshold.

4. The inspector was not under a duty to obtain further information or impose a condition. The authorities concerning further inquiry or conditions were concerned with procedural fairness or materially different circumstances. No such unfairness arose here.

5. Article 2 did not require a different result. PPG 8 provided a regulatory framework which accounted for vulnerability and allowed exceptional departures where necessary. The claimant had produced no evidence of a real risk of indirect interference affecting her health.

6. Alternative sites were relevant under PPG 8, but the issue had ceased to be a principal important controversial issue. The application materials and the local planning authority’s response addressed the alternatives, and the inspector’s reference to Local Plan Policy U1, together with his conclusion that the relevant policies were satisfied, was sufficient.