R (on the application of Thomas) (Appellant) v Cheltenham Borough Council (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0066

Parties

Appellant(s)

Steven Thomas

Respondent(s)

Cheltenham Borough Council

Cignal Infrastructure UK Limited

Issue

The Administrative Court and Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether the local planning authority (“LPA”) is required to take into account the potential impact of electromagnetic fields on medical implants when determining a prior approval application for a new telecommunications mast. The Appellant raises the issue of whether prior approval is a definitive legal obligation for all new ground-based telecommunication masts, and whether relevant provisions of the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) should have been applied by the LPA when determining the prior approval application.

Facts

On 26 May 2023, the Respondent LPA issued a decision that prior approval was not required under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for the proposed development of a 15-metre telecommunications mast and ancillary apparatus on a site within the Central Conservation Area in Cheltenham. The application to the LPA had been made by CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited (“Three”). The Appellant issued judicial review proceedings against the LPA’s decision, arguing that the report of the LPA’s Planning Officer, on which the decision was based, had failed to address concerns raised by the Appellant and by a resident of a nearby building about the effect of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on medical implants such as pacemakers and hearing aids. The High Court held that the LPA’s Planning Officer had erred in his approach by mistakenly assuming that his discretion was fettered by the National Planning Policy Framework and the self-certification by Three that its proposal fully complied with the requirements of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. However, the High Court refused to grant relief pursuant to section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 on the basis that it was highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different had the LPA’s Planning Officer followed the correct approach. Unusually, the successful LPA appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.