The claimant had objected to the grant of permission to erect a mobile phone mast near her property. The issue was that she had not been given opportunity to comment upon the consideration of alternative sites.
Held: The consideration of alternatives is an integral part of the process of assessment of an application for approval of the siting of telecommunications structures. The applicant for the permission had changed the basis of its application, widening the area of alternatives to 400m. The claimant had proceeded in her objection on the basis that alternatives could only be suggested within a 200m circle. In this case fairness did require that the claimant be given an opportunity to make representations in relation to the increase in the stated search area. ‘It is PPG8 that I consider particularly important in this case. It makes consideration of alternatives an integral part of the process of assessment of an application for approval of the siting of telecommunications structures. ‘ She had to show in addition substantial prejudice from that unfairness. That was shown and the decision was quashed.
The Honourable Mr Justice Richards
 EWHC 2415 (Admin), Times 30-Oct-2003,  JPL 613,  44 EG 169,  4 PLR 75
Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2000
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (Jones and Another) v North Warwickshire Borough Council CA 30-Mar-2001
When considering a planning application, it was only in exceptional circumstances that the authority should consider alternative sites. Those circumstances would be where the proposed development would involve such a conspicuous adverse impact, that . .
Cited – Mount Cook Land Ltd and Another v Westminster City Council CA 14-Oct-2003
The applicants had sought judicial review of the defendant’s grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former CandA building in Oxford Street. Though the application for leave to apply had been successful, and a full hearing took . .
Cited – St Leger-Davey and Another v First Secretary of State and others CA 1-Dec-2004
The applicants challenged permission granted to erect mobile phone masts, saying that the operators should have made application to the County Court.
Held: the provisions referred to allowed the company to follow a county court procedure where . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.187121