Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T14:15:03.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re St Anne, Wandsworth

Southwark Consistory Court: Petchey Ch, 2 November 2015 Telecoms masts – secular planning law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2016

Ruth Arlow
Ruth Arlow*
Affiliation:
Chancellor of the Diocese of Norwich
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Case Notes
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 261 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2016 

A faculty was granted for the installation of seven antennae and a satellite dish on the pepper-pot-style tower of this Grade II* listed church, along with a 20-year licence for the operation of the equipment. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and amenity societies advised that some harm would be caused to the tower's significance but accepted that this was outweighed by the benefits of income for the parish and enhanced internet provision for the community. One objection was received from the parents of a child at a local nursery.

The chancellor held that the health risks were not made out and that the facility would be operated well within internationally accepted safe standards for radiation. He also noted that the licence terms, which gave the incumbent and churchwardens power to request monitoring of radiation and to end the licence if unsafe, provided a higher degree of monitoring than secular planning law.

In considering the architectural and historic significance of the tower the chancellor held that the harm would be modest. However, he recognised that, even if harm were modest the presumption of preserving the status quo remained and that the balancing act of whether the benefit outweighed the harm needed to be considered. In particular he reflected on recent secular planning cases which emphasised the need to have regard to the overall presumption (East Northamptonshire DC v Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] 1 WLR 45 CA; R (Forge Field Society) v Sevenoaks DC [2014] EWHC 1895; and Ecotricity (Next Generation) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 801). The chancellor observed that, while the importance of considering the status quo remains equal regardless of the level of harm, the quantum of harm goes to the issue of whether it is outweighed by the benefits of the action proposed. He noted that there may need to be some revision of the Duffield guidelines in the light of the secular case law. [Catherine Shelley]