Cox v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Cox v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The omission of Appendix C (Site Specific Summary) from the material before the Inspector did not result in any error of fact, unfairness, or misleading non-disclosure. The Inspector's conclusions were supported by unchallenged evidence that emissions would be well within ICNIRP guidelines. There was no obligation to disclose Appendix C, and its absence was not material to the outcome. The claim fails on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Alan Cox; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: North Hertfordshire District Council; Third Defendant: T-Mobile (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (statutory Challenge Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations in Planning Appeals, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Error of Fact in Administrative Law, Health Concerns and Telecommunications Masts
Administrative Law Planning Law Disclosure Obligations in Planning Appeals Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Error of Fact in Administrative Law Health Concerns and Telecommunications Masts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Cox

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

North Hertfordshire District Council

Second Defendant

T-Mobile (UK) Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (statutory Challenge Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's decision was flawed due to lack of material information (Appendix C)
  2. 2 Whether there was a duty of disclosure of Appendix C by the Third Defendant
  3. 3 Whether omission of Appendix C resulted in unfairness or error of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The omission of Appendix C (Site Specific Summary) from the material before the Inspector did not result in any error of fact, unfairness, or misleading non-disclosure. The Inspector's conclusions were supported by unchallenged evidence that emissions would be well within ICNIRP guidelines. There was no obligation to disclose Appendix C, and its absence was not material to the outcome. The claim fails on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to amend the claim refused
  • Claim under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed