Town & Country Planning: Telecoms mastTelecommunications company applying for planning permission for erection of mast and equipment - permission refused - company appealing by way of written representations - inspector allowing appeal - claimant seeking to quash inspector's decision - whether inspector failing to have regard to issue of health risks - whether claimant denied opportunity to challenge technical evidence - whether unfairness or breach of natural justice - claim dismissedAnscomb v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Queen's Bench Division: Administrative Court: Turner J: 7 February 2001Vodafone made an application for planning permission for a 15m telecommunications mast, antennae and associated equipment at a site in Hampshire, to which the claimant, a local resident, objected.

In a report to the council by their planning officers, it was recorded that Vodafone had 'demonstrated that a full examination has been made of alternative sites and none is suitable'.

However, the council did not accept the officer's views and refused the application on the ground, among other things, that they were 'not satisfied that alternative sites could not be achieved within a reasonable timescale'.On an appeal by Vodafone under the written representations procedure, the inspector considered technical evidence produced by Vodafone regarding alternative sites and existing structures, including pylons, that could potentially be used for the placing of the antennae and equipment.

The council's expert agreed with the technical findings and, in its written representations, the council accepted Vodafone's case that there were no other suitable structures in the location and of sufficient permanence to accept the installation.

The inspector concluded that the proposed equipment could not be accommodated on existing buildings or structures and allowed the appeal.The claimant sought to quash the inspector's decision, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the grounds that: (i) the inspector had failed to consider the issue of the health risks that could arise and the public perception of risk; and (ii) the written representations procedure had caused unfairness to the claimant, as she had been denied a proper opportunity to challenge the technical evidence put before the inspector.

The claimant also relied upon a number of human rights grounds, submitting that, as an interested third party in the planning proceedings, she had a freestanding right under the European Convention on Human Rights, and that section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 required the court to adjudicate on issues in a manner compatible with Convention rights.Held: The claim was dismissed.

1.

There was no reference to the issue of health risks, or public perception of risk, in the documents submitted by the claimant to the inspector in her opposition to the appeal.

There was, therefore, as a matter of fact, no reference to health matters either perceived or actual before the inspector.

It was not a principal, controversial issue and the inspector could not be criticised for failing to deal with that matter expressly.2.

It was always open to an interested third party such as the claimant to request further time in which to submit a technical report.

There was no reason why a technical report referred to in a letter by one of the claimant's supporters could not have been exhibited.

No unfairness or breach of natural justice had been caused by the inspector's conduct in proceeding to determine the appeal without embarking upon an inquiry of a inquisitorial nature.3.

The position was clear upon a reading of s.22(4) and 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act together.

The claimant was unable to rely upon the Act, because it had not come into force at the time of the inspector's decision letter.Fiona Darroch (instructed by Earth Rights Solicitors, of Takeley) appeared for the claimant; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.