MiWeb 3.0

Concerns about the effects on health of mobile telephone masts have grown universally and particularly for residents in urban areas.

Planning Policy Guidance issued by the Government has tried to reduce planning arguments by stating that Local Authorities and Planning Inspectors do not need to consider health issues if the installation meets international guidelines. These have set out by the International Committee on Non-Ionising Radiation ("ICNIRP").

There is specific guidance on interference with medical apparatus. In any development where there is significant and irremediable interference with electrical equipment, such issues can be material when considering a Planning Application.

In the first hearing in the High Court, the patient's appeal was rejected. The threshold of significant and irremediable interference had not been crossed and no evidence had been provided to show that there were exceptional circumstances here.

The patient appealed, alleging that her concerns were the indirect effect that the mast could have, and were therefore not covered by ICNIRP Guidelines. The patient tried to draw a parallel with an earlier Court decision concerning a chemical waste treatment plant in Newport which had caused intense local opposition, exacerbated by a fire.

The Court of Appeal saw no reason to interfere with the earlier Court's decision. The Planning Inspector was not required to make further enquiries based upon a simple assertion that there would be an indirect effect and no parallel could be drawn with the Newport case.

The conclusion is that to mount a successful challenge, an applicant will need to produce substantial evidence regarding the grounds for concern over interference. Such an application might have been more successful had it affected a wider group of people. Somewhat inevitably, the lack of evidence about the risk of interference appears ultimately to have failed the patient.   

Harris v First Secretary of State [2007]