By FGP on 16th December 2019
Throughout 2019, FGP ‘In Touch’ has “touched” upon areas of case law of relevance to the Company’s operations acting for acquirers in the infrastructure development world. Crondall Parish Council became embroiled in the Habitats Directive and Aarhus Convention in a case where the planning process failed to take account of the Habitats Directive.
We looked at the application of the new Electronic Communications Code which took effect in 2017 under the Telecoms legislation to make it easier for network operators to install and maintain apparatus. Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd came unstuck on a couple of occasions in the High Court Upper Lands Tribunal with rough treatment and valuation approaches being highlighted.
As a follow on case costs in Telecoms Code Power cases was examined in Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Central Saint Giles General Partner Ltd & Another. The decision fell in favour of those faced with Code Operators looking for suitable sites for their apparatus. The Tribunal emphasized that Operators “cannot simply demand unquestioning cooperation from property owners”.
The case, Lockwood & others v Highways England [2019] UKUT 104, examined Certificates of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) procedure including onward to a planning appeal. Where CAAD is involved the process differs from standard planning. The claimants wrongly named a Council as the respondent to the appeal. Under the requirements of the Land Compensation Act, it should have been the acquiring authority, Highways England in this case.