Peter is single and is employed by the Lobby Group Ltd., a professional, "non-profit" company that acts as a general lobby group for industrialists. Last year he moved to live in a town close to his place of employment. He discovered that the local green field site, adjoining the village primary school, was going to be used for a phone mast. Despite his best efforts and the protests of the parents of many children at the school, the plans for the phone mast have been approved by the local planning authority. Peter is concerned because he has heard that a phone mast might cause illness. He also doubts that in the current economic circumstances that the use of mobile phones in the area will justify a mast. Peter wishes to seek judicial review and is willing to fund the case from his company's profits. Advice Peter on the rules of standing, the grounds for review and the procedures to be followed.
[...] Despite his best efforts and the protests of the parents of many children at the school, the plans for the ‘phone mast have been approved by the local planning authority. Peter is concerned because he has heard that a ‘phone mast might cause illness. He also doubts that in the current economic circumstances that the use of mobile phones in the area will justify a mast. Peter wishes to seek judicial review and is willing to fund the case from his company's profits. Advice Peter on the rules of standing, the grounds for review and the procedures to be followed. [...]
[...] Local residents have often a better knowledge of the area than the telecommunication operator. Consultation between local groups and operator is a part of the pre-application process as the PPG8[9] makes provision for. These guidelines[10] assert that when a school is involved, the relevant body of the school should discuss the development plan with the operator and gives its approval. This phase of consultation is prior to the grant of permission by the local authority. This means that Peter cannot establish that the local authority failed. [...]
[...] I the rules of standing Peter wishes to challenge the decision of granting permission for the telecommunication mast. The rules of standing are used to establish who is entitled to litigate. This first step in the judicial review process is made to turn down hopeless and unmeritorious cases. Peter will have to demonstrate the importance of the issue raised by his claim. First, Peter could stand as a local resident. In the rules of standing for judicial review, the test applied to Peter is the “sufficient interest”. [...]
[...] Another option could be to argue that as a local resident, he is a tax payer and could be then concerned by the way his local authority is regulating the expenditures. However since the Inland Revenue Commissioners case[1], it is not enough to be a tax payer to satisfy the sufficient interest test. As he cannot apply for an individual standing, another solution for him would be to apply for associational standing. Some parents are also protesting against the phone mast. They have a sufficient interest as their children are at the school adjoining the local field. [...]
[...] He invokes the protection of human health. For example, in the T Mobile[15] case, one issue was to determine if sufficient assurances were given that building a phone mast could not result in “material harm, in terms of health concerns, to the living conditions of children in nearby schools”. In this particular case, it was held that the proposal met the guidelines edited by the ICNIRP[16] and the actual health risks were not demonstrated and the planning permission was granted. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
