Steven Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council & Anor

Steven Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council & Anor

The Planning Officer erred by fettering discretion and failing to independently consider the specific concerns about EMFs and medical implants, mistakenly believing that compliance with ICNIRP guidelines and paragraph 118 of the NPPF precluded such consideration. However, the error did not affect the outcome because, on the evidence, the Officer would have been entitled to treat the concerns as immaterial and likely would have done so. The potential impact of EMFs on medical implants is not always a material consideration; it depends on the evidence and circumstances of each case.

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
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Electromagnetic Fields and Health, Prior Approval for Telecommunications Infrastructure, Judicial Review Relief, Interpretation of Planning Policy
Administrative Law Planning Law Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Electromagnetic Fields and Health Prior Approval for Telecommunications Infrastructure Judicial Review Relief Interpretation of Planning Policy

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Thomas

Claimant/respondent

Cheltenham Borough Council

Defendant/appellant

Cignal Infrastructure Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the potential impact of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on medical implants is a material consideration in planning decisions for telecommunications infrastructure
  2. 2 Whether the Planning Officer erred by fettering discretion based on planning policy and ICNIRP guidelines
  3. 3 Whether the error affected the outcome and warranted relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Planning Officer erred by fettering discretion and failing to independently consider the specific concerns about EMFs and medical implants, mistakenly believing that compliance with ICNIRP guidelines and paragraph 118 of the NPPF precluded such consideration. However, the error did not affect the outcome because, on the evidence, the Officer would have been entitled to treat the concerns as immaterial and likely would have done so. The potential impact of EMFs on medical implants is not always a material consideration; it depends on the evidence and circumstances of each case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No relief granted; the Judge's decision stands
  • Clarification that the judgment does not establish a general principle regarding EMFs and medical implants as material considerations