Global menu

Our global pages

Close

Lawbite - ‘Mast’ered the definition but it’s still not permitted

  • United Kingdom
  • Litigation and dispute management

09-07-2019

R (on the application of Mawbey) and others v Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1016

The Claimant, a neighbouring home owner, brought a claim for judicial review of the decision to grant the Defendant, CTIL a licence to erect apparatus on a roof of a block of flats on the basis that the apparatus did not fall within the confines of permitted development pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (“the GPDO”).

CTIL installed 9 antennae mounted in groups on the 4 corners of the plant room on the roof of the building. Each antennae was supported by an antennae pole attached by a yoke arm to one of the 4 central support poles.

The High Court found in favour of the Claimant - the central support poles were masts and not permitted development under the GPDO which stipulates that a “mast” is not permitted development if:

  1. it is on a building less than 15 metres high; and
  2. within 20 metres of a highway

CTIL appealed the Judge’s finding and the appeal turned on the definition of “mast” at paragraph A.4 of Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO which is simply “a radio mast or a radio tower”.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no good argument for any different understanding of the term “mast” from that adopted by the High Court Judge – a “mast” is an upright pole or a lattice-work structure, whose function was to support an antenna or aerial.

Having determined that the apparatus was in fact a “mast”, it did not fall within the confines of permitted development pursuant to the GPDO.

Key points

  • the definition of “mast” at paragraph A.4 of Part 16 of Schedule 2 is vague to say the least - consideration of the term “mast” by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal is extremely helpful for both operators and landowners.
  • this case will help landowners/site providers to assess whether operators can seek to rely on permitted development rights to erect apparatus on their sites or whether express planning permission is required
Jennifer Leah, Senior Associate

< Go back

Print Friendly and PDF

© Eversheds Sutherland 2021. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a global provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities.

Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements and operate in accordance with their locally registered names. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client.