Harris v The First Secretary of State & Ors

Harris v The First Secretary of State & Ors

The inspector was entitled to apply PPG 8 and ICNIRP guidelines to the claimant's case, as no exceptional circumstances or clear evidence of interference with medical equipment were presented; the regulatory scheme and decision did not violate Article 2 ECHR, and alternative sites were adequately addressed.

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 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Telecommunications, Health and Safety, European Convention on Human Rights, Planning Policy Guidance, Alternative Sites
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Town and Country Planning Telecommunications Health and Safety European Convention on Human Rights Planning Policy Guidance +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 5 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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in applying PPG 8 paragraph 98 to the claimant's particular vulnerability
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to consider the indirect impact of electromagnetic radiation on medical equipment
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's approach conflicted with Article 2 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to apply PPG 8 and ICNIRP guidelines to the claimant's case, as no exceptional circumstances or clear evidence of interference with medical equipment were presented; the regulatory scheme and decision did not violate Article 2 ECHR, and alternative sites were adequately addressed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed