Harris v The First Secretary of State & Ors [2007] EWHC 1847 (Admin) (31 July 2007)

Harris v The First Secretary of State & Ors [2007] EWHC 1847 (Admin) (31 July 2007)

The inspector was entitled to apply PPG 8 paragraph 98 as the claimant's circumstances did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying departure from policy; there was no clear evidence of significant risk of interference with medical equipment; and the regulatory scheme, as applied, did not breach Article 2 ECHR.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1847 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Pam Jean Harris; 1st Defendant: The First Secretary of State; 2nd Defendant: Peterborough City Council; 3rd Defendant: Hutchison 3G UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288, Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission for Telecommunications Infrastructure, Health and Safety in Planning Decisions, Material Considerations in Planning Law, Application of European Convention on Human Rights Article 2, Interference With Medical Equipment, Interpretation of Planning Policy Guidance 8 (ppg 8)
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Planning Permission for Telecommunications Infrastructure Health and Safety in Planning Decisions Material Considerations in Planning Law Application of European Convention on Human Rights Article 2 Interference With Medical Equipment +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pam Jean Harris

Claimant

The First Secretary of State

1st Defendant

Peterborough City Council

2nd Defendant

Hutchison 3G UK Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288, Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in applying PPG 8 paragraph 98 to the claimant's particular medical vulnerability
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to address the risk of interference with the claimant's medical equipment
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's approach conflicted with Article 2 ECHR obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to apply PPG 8 paragraph 98 as the claimant's circumstances did not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying departure from policy; there was no clear evidence of significant risk of interference with medical equipment; and the regulatory scheme, as applied, did not breach Article 2 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed