The applicants challenged permission granted to erect mobile phone masts, saying that the operators should have made application to the County Court.
Held: the provisions referred to allowed the company to follow a county court procedure where they wanted to impose a mast. The provisions did not impose any obligation on the company to follow that route: ‘Neither statute nor planning policy guidance enjoins an applicant in the position of Orange to apply to the County Court ‘
Judges:
Pill LJ, Laws LJ
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 1612, Times 03-Dec-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Telecommunications Act 1984 Sch 2, Communications Act 2003
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte de Rothschild CA 1988
The court considered the use of powers of compulsory purchase of land under the Acts.
Held: ‘In answer to counsel’s submissions as to ‘special rules’, I summarise my conclusions thus. First, I do not accept that any special rules beyond the . .
Cited – Phillips v First Secretary of State and others Admn 22-Oct-2003
The claimant had objected to the grant of permission to erect a mobile phone mast near her property. The issue was that she had not been given opportunity to comment upon the consideration of alternative sites.
Held: The consideration of . .
Appeal from – Leger-Davey and Another v First Secretary of State and others Admn 1-Mar-2004
Objection to mobile phone mast . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219875
