Steven Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council

Steven Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council

The authority erred in failing to consider the specific issue of potential impacts of EMFs on medical implants, which was a material consideration raised by objections. However, it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different had this issue been properly addressed, given the evidence of low EMF exposure and the distance to affected residents.

Parties
Claimant: Steven Thomas; Defendant: Cheltenham Borough Council; Interested Party: Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Relief refused
Legal Topics
Prior Approval Process, Health Impacts of Telecommunications Equipment, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, ICNIRP Guidelines, Judicial Review Relief
Planning Law Administrative Law Prior Approval Process Health Impacts of Telecommunications Equipment Material Considerations in Planning Decisions ICNIRP Guidelines Judicial Review Relief

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Thomas

Claimant

Cheltenham Borough Council

Defendant

Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local planning authority erred in failing to consider the potential impact of EMFs on medical implants when determining prior approval for telecommunications equipment
  2. 2 Whether the authority was obliged to consider public objections regarding health risks under planning law
  3. 3 Whether the authority's reliance on ICNIRP guidelines was sufficient to discharge its obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The authority erred in failing to consider the specific issue of potential impacts of EMFs on medical implants, which was a material consideration raised by objections. However, it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different had this issue been properly addressed, given the evidence of low EMF exposure and the distance to affected residents.

Court Disposition

Relief refused