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

Use of statutory demand to make company insolvent suspended until June

Blog, Legal Updates
08/04/2021
Cheraine Williams looks at more temporary Covid-driven measures that will protect businesses and tenants from possible legal action
Read more Read

New guidance issued for valuation of flats and investigating fire safety

Blog, Legal Updates
07/04/2021
Cheraine Williams looks a the current situation facing leaseholders looking to sell or re-finance their property; will new guidance provide clarity?
Read more Read

Government sets new energy targets for domestic and commercial buildings

Blog, Legal Updates
06/04/2021
UK law requires net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050; new rules and standards for heating and powering buildings will have a significant impact
Read more Read

Covid regs prevent landlords taking action to recover rent for more than 500 days

Blog, Legal Updates
01/04/2021
Just seven days’ rent arrears used to be enough for commercial landlords to take action; the latest adjustment pushes that out to 554 days
Read more Read
  • Brighton Office

    1 Jubilee Street

    Brighton

    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Gatwick Office

    Griffin House

    135 High Street

    Crawley

    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford Office

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road

    Guildford

    Surrey

    GU3 1LR

  • Horsham Office

    Ridgeland House

    15 Carfax

    Horsham

    West Sussex

    RH12 1DY

  • London Office

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane

    London

    EC4A 3BF

  • Get in touch