Appeal result ‘headache’ for hospital neighbour

Thursday 25 April 2019

A man who appealed against a Future Hospital electricity substation being built next to his house on the basis that it would cause him headaches has lost his case.

Stephen Bougourd, who appealed against the development alongside his wife, Marianne, also argued that it would stunt their plans to launch a “centre for health” including counselling and massage services.

Their property, which combines domestic dwelling with space used for a counselling business and office space, adjoins St. Elmo, a vacant property in a poor state of repair which would be demolished to make way for the JEC substation. 

Pictured: A digital model of the substation. (Waddington Architects)

According to the independent planning inspector tasked with reviewing the appeal, Mr Graham Self, their case was that “it is not acceptable to have an electricity sub-station on the other side of a thin brick wall to someone receiving treatment, not just because of electromagnetic interference but also because the perception to potential clients and tenants would adversely affect the appellants' business and finances.”

Furthermore, they argued that such a development would visually impact the area, and could knock up to £100,000 off the value of their Grade 3 listed building “overnight”.

The inspector also heard that Mr Bougourd suffers from headaches aggravated by “using items such as mobile phones or a microwave based internet router”. “He says he is especially sensitive to magnetic fields and that his headaches would be made worse if the proposed development were carried out,” the inspector noted.

But it wasn’t just Mr and Mrs Bougourd who were aggrieved with the proposed development. Mr Self also reflected on numerous other concerns linked with the Future Hospital development. 

Pictured: The St. Elmo's Energy Centre will be located at the junction of the Parade and Kensington Place.

He said that he could understand why some objectors to the development felt that the Planning Committee had been given ‘false’ information in the application and he expressed surprise that the site for the new hospital did not include the land, given that the sub-station would serve the development. 

“It therefore seems odd to me that the site for the hospital application excluded No 4 Edward Place, resulting in what would appear to be an awkwardly-shaped site with a 'hole' inside it, which on the face of it would be likely to restrict the space available and cause design or feasibility problems for that project”, he said. 

However, he declined to be drawn into debate about the independence of the Planning Department - an issue raised by a member of the public appearing at the appeal.

“Some objectors…criticise what is perceived to be a lack of independence of [the Minister’s] Department as planning authority, particularly when making decisions or recommendations on applications by other government departments. I refrain from expressing a view on this matter as I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment here on how the States has decided to organise its government”, he said. 

Pictured: Mr and Mrs Bougourd's property adjoins St. Elmo.

During the course of the appeal hearing, other objectors claimed that the application was premature, given that the status of the future hospital project was still very much up in the air.

Although the Planning Inspector, Mr Graham Self, rejected the appeal, he drew attention to inconsistencies in a letter from the JEC in which they sought to justify the need for the new sub-station. 

“It is difficult to reconcile the statement that there is no reason to believe that the flawless service provided by the Stafford Hotel substation will change in the foreseeable future with the statement that this substation will need to be replaced in the near future. 

“The latter statement is made "in addition" to the need to relocate the Kensington Place substation to provide increased capacity for the existing hospital. I am not the only one to perceive this evidence as conflicting - others have perceived it similarly,” he said in his report.

Pictured: The Planning Inspector found no grounds for rejecting the development. (Waddington Architects)

Mr Self added that he could understand why some people believed that the committee was, therefore, given “false” information. However, the Inspector found no grounds for rejecting the development on the basis of the alleged adverse health effects although he did suggest a variation of the condition which requires the testing of electromagnetic levels once any facility is operational.

Although he said that he could understand why some objectors felt that the application should have been deferred until the new hospital site had been resolved, he said that since the application had been made separately, it had to be resolved now. 

In a letter, the Department for Growth, Housing and Environment said that the new substation is required for the existing hospital irrespective of the future of the new one.

Following receipt of the Planning Inspector’s report, the Planning Minister, Deputy John Young formally dismissed the appeal and granted planning permission subject to the work being started within three years and completed within two years.