The claimant sought to object to an inspector’s decision to allow erection of a telecommunications mast. The failure of the inspector to consider potential health risks was not open to criticism because the claimant’s papers had made no reference to such risks. A technical report which might have been considered had not been submitted, and the claimant’s objection on human rights grounds failed inter alia on the grounds that the decision had been issued before the Act came into effect.
Citations:
Gazette 22-Feb-2001
Statutes:
Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) 7(1)(b) 22(4), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288
Planning, Human Rights
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77804
