Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 259 (13 March 2025)

Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 259 (13 March 2025)

The Planning Officer erred by fettering discretion and failing to consider whether the impact of EMFs on medical implants was a material consideration, but the error did not affect the outcome because, on the evidence, it was highly likely the Officer would have left the information out of account even if properly considered. The impact of EMFs on medical implants is not always a material consideration; it depends on the facts and evidence presented.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 259
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Steven Thomas; Defendant/appellant: Cheltenham Borough Council; Interested Party: Cignal Infrastructure Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (planning Court) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Electromagnetic Fields and Medical Implants, Prior Approval for Telecommunications Infrastructure
Administrative Law Planning Law Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Electromagnetic Fields and Medical Implants Prior Approval for Telecommunications Infrastructure

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Thomas

Claimant/respondent

Cheltenham Borough Council

Defendant/appellant

Cignal Infrastructure Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (planning Court) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the potential impact of EMFs on medical implants is a material consideration in planning decisions for telecommunications masts
  2. 2 Whether the Planning Officer erred by fettering discretion based on NPPF and ICNIRP guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The Planning Officer erred by fettering discretion and failing to consider whether the impact of EMFs on medical implants was a material consideration, but the error did not affect the outcome because, on the evidence, it was highly likely the Officer would have left the information out of account even if properly considered. The impact of EMFs on medical implants is not always a material consideration; it depends on the facts and evidence presented.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No relief granted; Judge's decision upheld
  • Clarification that the impact of EMFs on medical implants is not always a material consideration in planning decisions