Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council (Record no. 122121)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02888naa a22002177a 4500
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 250227e20250314xxk|||||ov|||o00| | eng d
041 ## - LANGUAGE CODE
Language code of text/sound track or separate title eng
245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Thomas v Cheltenham Borough Council
Subtitle [2025] EWCA Civ 259
260 ## - PUBLICATION INFORMATION
Publisher Court of Appeal (Civil division)
Date 13 March 2025
520 ## - ABSTRACT
Abstract Court of Appeal judgment 13 March 2025. Rejects the appeal to the Administrative Court decision. The Judge in the earlier case did not find that the potential impact of EMFs on pacemakers or other implants was material even in the circumstances of this specific case, let alone that it would always be a material consideration in applications of this nature. For those reasons the appeal is dismissed. There was no obligation on the inspector to deal with the matter in his decision letter. In the same way, the outcome in the present case flows from the fact that the Council was not obliged to treat the issue of the impact of EMFs on medical implants as a material issue on the basis of the information that was available to it, either generally or in the form of the objections that it received. In a case where the evidence was different, the obligation on the local planning authority might also be different. <br/><br/>By his finding that a local authority had erred by failing to give weight to the potential impacts of an electromagnetic field on medical implants of nearby residents when dispensing with prior approval for the development of electronic communication equipment, a judge had not laid down a general principle that the potential impact of electromagnetic fields on medical implants would always be a material consideration.<br/><br/>Local residents had raised concerns about the effect of EMFs on medical implants such as pacemakers and hearing aids for the occupants of a residential building for the over 55s. The planning officer in his report stated that, pursuant to National Planning Policy Framework para.118, local planning authorities should not set health safeguards different from the guidelines for public exposure set by the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection, and that a declaration of conformity with those guidelines provided by the applicant had been sufficient. The judge decided that the planning officer had erred in his approach by failing to consider the concerns, but refused relief because the outcome would not have been substantially different<br/>
520 ## - ABSTRACT
Abstract Justices: Lord Jackson, Lady Asplin, Lady Andrews
520 ## - ABSTRACT
Abstract Judgment appealed [2024] EWHC 1035 (Admin)
650 ## - KEYWORDS
Keywords THOMAS v CHELTENHAM BC
650 ## - KEYWORDS
Keywords PLANNING
650 ## - KEYWORDS
Keywords ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
650 ## - KEYWORDS
Keywords TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
650 ## - KEYWORDS
Keywords TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS
651 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME
Geographic name United Kingdom
690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN)
Topical term or geographic name as entry element Planning and development
9 (RLIN) 6259
856 ## - ONLINE RESOURCE
Uniform Resource Identifier https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/259.html
Public note Judgement available on BAILII
Holdings
Withdrawn status Lost status Damaged status Koha normalized classification for sorting Not for loan Home library Current library Shelving location Date acquired Total Checkouts Full call number Date last seen Price effective from Koha item type
      ONLINE_JUDGMENT   Virtual Virtual Online 17/03/2025   ONLINE JUDGMENT 17/03/2025 17/03/2025 Law report