000			02888naa a22002177a 4500
008			250227e20250314xxk|||||ov|||o00| | eng d
041			_aeng
245			_aThomas v Cheltenham Borough Council _b[2025] EWCA Civ 259
260			_bCourt of Appeal (Civil division) _c13 March 2025
520			_aCourt 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. 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. 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
520			_aJustices: Lord Jackson, Lady Asplin, Lady Andrews
520			_aJudgment appealed [2024] EWHC 1035 (Admin)
650			_aTHOMAS v CHELTENHAM BC
650			_aPLANNING
650			_aELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
650			_aTELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
650			_aTELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS
651			_aUnited Kingdom
690			_aPlanning and development _96259
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/259.html _zJudgement available on BAILII
999			_c122121 _d122121