Landowner unable to resist telecoms operators

30 Aug 2019

A landowner, with planning permission to redevelop, has been unable to prevent two mobile operators claiming rights over his land, because he did not have a “real” intention to carry out the works. 

In the case (EE Limited -v- Sir James HE Chichester [2019] UKUT 164 (LC) the mobile operators’ lease of the site had expired in 2017.  The parties’ negotiations to agree a new lease failed, and the operators applied to the Tribunal for an order imposing their rights under the Electronic Telecommunications Code (Code Rights) to allow them to retain a telecoms mast on the site. 

If, however, the landowner could show it intended to redevelop the site and could not reasonably do so if the operators’ mast remained in situ, no order would be made by the Tribunal.

Here the landowner had both planning permission and the financial means to redevelop the site. Interestingly, his redevelopment plans involved installing his own telecoms mast, which he said would improve the broadband connectivity to his surrounding Estate.

The Tribunal concluded the landowner had to show a reasonable prospect of being able to carry out the redevelopment and a firm settled and unconditional intention to do so.

This followed the approach in the recently decided Supreme Court case of F Franses Ltd -v- Cavendish Hotel (London) Limited concerning a landlord opposing a grant of a renewal tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 on the ground of redevelopment.  In that case the Court decided the “acid test” was whether the landlord would intend to do the same works irrespective of whether its tenant had a legal right to a new tenancy.

In the EE Limited case, the landowner ultimately failed to satisfy the Tribunal that its redevelopment plans were not contrived purely to prevent the operators’ acquisition of Code Rights.  In particular, he was unable to persuade the Tribunal that his plans were viable or that the real purpose of the plan to install his own mast was better broadband.

This is a blow for landowners whose plans to redevelop will now face greater scrutiny. However it is very much in line with the overarching purpose of the Code - to facilitate operators to provide greater connectivity – some would say at the expense of landowners’ rights.

Further reading

Supporting employees through the next lockdown

Managing your employees through uncertainty and equipping them to thrive, remain engaged and feel part of a team environment, must be a HR priority for 2021.
Read more Read

Remote working and home security

Blog, News & PR
With a large proportion of the workforce now working from home, security arrangements for home workers need to be addressed - Robert Ganpatsingh explains
Read more Read

Tenants take note: dilapidations damages to be subject to VAT

Blog, Legal Updates
Property expert Cheraine Williams explains why dilapidations could be about to get more expensive
Read more Read

Covid business interruption insurance payments due to small and medium companies

Blog, Legal Updates
Partner Jonathan Compton looks at the Supreme Court’s decision on business interruption insurance
Read more Read
  • Brighton Office

    1 Jubilee Street


    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Gatwick Office

    Griffin House

    135 High Street


    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford Office

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road



    GU3 1LR

  • Horsham Office

    Ridgeland House

    15 Carfax


    West Sussex

    RH12 1DY

  • London Office

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane


    EC4A 3BF

  • Get in touch