Local Government Lawyer Home Page


Sharpe Edge Webpage Banner

Welcome to Sharpe Edge, Sharpe Pritchard’s local government legal hub on Local Government Lawyer.

Sharpe Edge features news, views and analysis from our team of specialist local government lawyers working at the heart of the latest legal developments. Sharpe Edge platform is also the only place where local government lawyers can get e-access to two law books by our Head of Local Government Rob Hann: The Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers (‘LACAT’) and The Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships (‘LACAP’).

 

                                                                                                  

Slide background

Rooftop rows: What does an imposed Code agreement mean for site providers and operators?

Lillee Reid-Hunt and Christos Paphiti consider a recent Upper Tribunal decision that provides useful guidance on what site providers and telecoms operators can expect from the terms of an imposed Code agreement, especially in relation to upgrading and sharing of equipment and ballpark consideration and compensation figures.

Upper Tribunal (‘UT’) imposed agreement

Telecommunications operators will seek to acquire rights under Schedule 3A of the Communications Act 2003 (the ‘Code’) to install and maintain apparatus on land through negotiation of a written agreement with a site provider, being the person or entity in occupation of the land (usually the landowner). Failing this, subject to certain conditions the operator can apply to the UT for an order imposing an agreement under paragraph 20 of the Code.

The UT can make an order if the conditions of paragraph 21 of the Code are satisfied, as follows:

  1. the prejudice caused to the site provider can be adequately compensated by money; and
  2. the public benefit likely to result from the order outweighs the prejudice to the site provider. In considering this limb, the UT must have regard to the public interest in having a choice of high-quality electronic communications services.

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2020] UKUT 282 (LC)

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited (‘CTIL’) sought the right to install electronic communications apparatus on the rooftop of a mixed-use development in Peckham following determination of an agreement under which the apparatus was housed on another site. The Peckham development was owned by London & Quadrant Housing Trust (‘Quadrant’), a registered social housing provider, and around two thirds of the rooftop comprised solar panels.

Following failed negotiations between the parties, CTIL successfully applied to the UT for the imposition of interim Code rights in April 2020 and then for the imposition of a final Code agreement. The question on whether the paragraph 21 test was met was settled early in the claim and the parties had agreed upon various terms that should be included in a final Code agreement. The UT was therefore asked to consider what the terms of a final Code agreement should comprise in relation to:

  1. a cap on the equipment that could be installed by CTIL;
  2. upgrading and sharing – this was particularly relevant for CTIL’s business, which operates by providing apparatus for the purposes of the networks operated by its two shareholders, Telefonica UK Ltd and Vodafone Ltd; and
  3. compensation and consideration – this was particularly relevant for Quadrant given the existence of the solar panels on the rooftop and the potential effect of the apparatus on its building services and costs (safety, maintenance, insurance, use of common parts etc.).

The Decision

Equipment cap

Quadrant sought to limit the equipment that CTIL could install under the terms of the agreement to an exhaustive list, but the UT held that a cap would be inappropriate because Quadrant’s interest was already sufficiently protected. It held that the proposed Code agreement contained terms preventing CTIL from overloading the building and required it to take all reasonable steps to ensure its apparatus did not pose any health and safety issues. Further, CTIL would be limited to installations within the defined site boundaries and any additional equipment would be subject to planning constraints.

Upgrading and sharing

Paragraph 17 of the Code enables an operator to upgrade and share apparatus, provided that the exercise of such rights does not have a more than minimal adverse impact on appearance of the apparatus and does not impose any additional burden on the site provider.

CTIL sought unlimited upgrade and sharing rights. Quadrant argued that any such rights granted should be limited to the conditions in paragraph 17 of the Code to counteract the burden that would be caused (especially in relation to health and safety) in the context of a mixed-use development with alternative infrastructure occupying much of the rooftop.

The UT accepted CTIL’s argument that paragraph 17 does not comprehensively contain the upgrade rights that may be required by an operator, and an operator may seek express agreement from a site provider for a wider range of rights. The UT applied the ‘least possible loss and damage principle’ contained in paragraph 25 of the Code and held that Quadrant’s concerns could be addressed by limiting CTIL’s sharing rights to two operators without any paragraph 17 conditions, with further sharing to be permitted subject to paragraph 17 conditions. The UT decided that restrictions on upgrade would be in inappropriate given the expected improvements to technology during the ten-year term of the agreement.

The UT highlighted that the fast pace of technological change in the telecommunications industry means that operators must future proof sites because the rights granted under a Code agreement cannot be expanded during the term of such agreement without further negotiation and compensation. The UT held that paragraph 17 is a ‘statutory irreducible minimum’ so it operates as a floor, not a ceiling, and the minimum rights under paragraph 17 were not appropriate in the context of a ten-year Code agreement with an operator whose business is to share apparatus.

Consideration and compensation

The decision in this case provides the first full review of valuation under Code agreements since EE Ltd and another v LB Islington [2019] UKUT 0053 (LC).

The UT set consideration for the rooftop site at £5,000 per annum (considerably less than the consideration in the sum of around £16,000 sought by Quadrant). The figure took into account:

  • a nominal site value per annum (approx. £50);
  • the benefit to CTIL of the provision of Quadrant’s building services – insurance and maintenance (approx. £1,500);
  • an allowance for additional burdens to Quadrant for managing CTIL’s access to the common parts and the rooftop (including the solar panels) (approx. £1,000); and
  • an allowance reflecting anticipated costs to Quadrant for CTIL’s sharing rights to two additional operators and unlimited upgrade rights.

The UT capped compensation payable to Quadrant for its professional fees in connection with negotiation of the Code agreement at around £3,000.

The UT reiterated that pre-Code transactions are not relevant to the assessment of consideration under paragraph 24 of the Code, and further, while each determination will be fact-specific the UT would not expect that the market value of a rooftop site with extensive rights would be more than £5,000 per annum, regardless of its location.

Remark

The UT’s comment on the market value of rooftop sites for telecommunications apparatus helps to manage the expectations of parties negotiating new Code agreements, and presents telecoms surveyors with a ballpark figure from which to apply the Code’s valuation methodology across various sites. The decision also guides parties to take a ‘holistic’ approach in considering what protections are available under the Code, the planning regime and the terms of the agreement itself to address concerns.

Parties may also approach negotiations with more of an eagerness to settle Code agreements between them without seeking the imposition of an agreement by the UT. Not only could the UT impose less favourable terms, but the costs associated with the court process will not necessarily be borne by the successful party – especially where a Code agreement is imposed and neither party can necessarily be deemed the ‘winner’. In this case, each party was ordered to pay its own costs (CTIL’s were in the sum of around £300,000 and Quadrant’s in the sum of around £150,000).

Lillee Reid-Hunt is an Associate and Christos Paphiti is a Trainee Solicitor at Sharpe Pritchard.

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

sharpe edge 600x100

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

LACAT BookFREE download!

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers

Written and edited by Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, Rob Hann,

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers covers:

• Updated charging powers compendium          • Commercial trading options

• Teckal ‘public to public’                                    • Localism Act

FREE DOWNLOAD

LACAT BookAvailable to buy:

A Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships

An invaluable, comprehensive toolkit for lawyers, law firms and others advising
on or participating in Local Authority Companies and Partnerships”

- Local Authority Chief Executive

BUY NOW

  More Articles

Icons House

Thurrock Council & Another v Adams & Ors [2022] EWHC 1324 (QB)

William Rose, Partner at Sharpe Pritchard LLP, has successfully acted for Thurrock Council and Essex County Council in obtaining a ‘first of its kind’ injunction against individuals connected with the protest group Just Stop Oil.
Icons Date

The Adjudication Part 3: The Response and Further Submissions 9 June 2022

David Owens and James Goldthorpe look at the responding party's response and further submissions during adjudication.
Icons House

A renewable future: focusing energy solutions at a local level

Natasha Barlow and Steve Gummer discuss the 'Energy Trilemma' and how it is playing out at a local level.
Icons Date

Procurement Bill – Initial impressions from the first draft

Juli Lau and Sophie Mcfie-Hyland outline their initial impressions from the first draft of the Procurement Bill.
Icons Hazard

Let’s paint the town green! Government plans for green homes

Laura Campbell discusses the change urgently needed in towns and cities to make the landscape greener.
Icons House

The Queen’s Speech in Brief

The number of Bills which affect public sector clients is greater than usual – and the government have got straight off the starting blocks by publishing some of them already.
Icons Hazard

Refurbishment and Retrofitting: In with the old, out with the new!

Sharpe Pritchard analyse the challenge of decarbonising the construction sector.
Icons House

NET ZERO – What obligations are there on the UK to achieve it?

Radhika Devesher takes a look at the legal duty to achieve net-zero placed upon the UK.
Icons House

Championing green goals through public buying

Juli Lau considers how public purchasing power can be used to champion Net Zero goals, and how public procurement might be used as another driver for change.
Icons Hazard

Top Tips for Local Authority Lawyers advising on Data Protection Matters

Charlotte Smith and Hannah Peto set out some of their top tips to consider when advising on data protection matters.
Icons Court

The Cost of Freedom of Information – The Council’s Failure to Advise

Charlotte Smith and Nadia Ahmed summarise the case and judgement of Moss v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames and another (NJ/2018/007).
Rob Hann Photoshop

Ask the Author

These are frequently asked questions to Rob Hann from colleagues in Local Government via the Sharpe Pritchard ‘Ask-the-Author' facility concerning the subject matter of his books on local authority companies, partnerships, charging and trading.
Icons Court

A call to review public contracts with Russian suppliers

Juli Lau and Gonzalo Puertas discuss the first official document to consider public sector contracts with companies linked to the Russian and Belarusian state regimes, issued by the Cabinet Office.
Icons Date

A New NEC Option to tackle greenwashing in the construction industry

Allan Owen and Sophie Drysdale discuss 'greenwashing' in the construction industry and a new secondary option clause X29 for its NEC4 suite of contracts developed by NEC.
Icons House

The Pathway to the Future – The Road Map for Employment Tribunals

David Leach discusses and outlines the road map of the planned changes for modernising the Tribunals in 2022 and 2023 released by The Presidents of the Employment Tribunals.
Icons House

Farrar Out

Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe discuss how the insolvency of Farrar Construction leads to clarity from the Courts on dealing with an insolvent contractor under JCT.
Icons House

The UK government has this week introduced the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Peter Collins and Sophie Pilcher discuss the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill introduced by the UK Government this week.
Icons Hazard

A sweet truth for selectivity

Steve Gummer and Gonzalo Puertas discuss a case that concerns an application for judicial review seeking to challenge a decision to introduce a zero-duty autonomous tariff quota (“ATQ”) of 260,000 metric tonnes of raw cane sugar for refining.
Icons House

Adjudication 101: Introduction and Overview

Michael Comba traces the origins of adjudication and considers why the process was introduced, who it is aimed towards and how construction contracts must include certain provisions.
Icons Date

New Government Guidance on PFI Expiry

Rob Hann, Head of Local Government at Sharpe Pritchard, takes a look at new guidance on PFI expiry recently published by the IPA to help public bodies wrestle with the complexities of transition they will face as these contracts reach full term.
Icons Hazard

Three new Levels to ‘level up’ Local Government in England?

Rob Hann, Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of local government, takes a look at the new proposals under the Government’s Levelling Up White Paper to facilitate devolution to remaining regions of local government in England which are currently without a Mayoral Combined Authority.
Icons Hazard

Will employers still be able to use the practice of ‘fire and rehire’ in 2022?

Christian Grierson and Julie Bann discuss a recent case in which the High Court has granted an injunction preventing Tesco from using the controversial employment practice of ‘fire and rehire’.
Icons Hazard

Progress on Climate Change action plans in Local Government

Stephen Cirell discusses the progress on climate change and renewable energy action plans within Local Government.
<a href=

Witches’ hats, sexist comments, and a £2 million pay-out

Julie Bann and Christian Grierson discuss a case in which a finance specialist has won over £2 million in compensation, after claims of sex discrimination and unequal pay.
Icons Hazard

Stuck in traffic?

High Court rules “VIP Lanes” For PPE contracts breached fundamental procurement law principles, in latest Judicial Review victory for the Good Law Project.
<a href=

Local Authority Sports and Leisure provision – Challenges Post-Covid19

With the unique circumstances posed by the Covid 19 pandemic and temporary closures of Council-sponsored sports and leisure facilities, Rob Hann, Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government outlines some of the challenges the sector faces.
<a href=

Bucking the Trend on Specific Performance Buckinghamshire Council v FCC Buckinghamshire Limited

Clare Mendelle and James Hughes highlight the wide definition of Third-Party Income and the measures the courts are prepared to take to enforce the terms of longstanding contracts, by analysing the Buckinghamshire Council v FCC Buckinghamshire Limited case.
<a href=

The Government’s response to the Transforming Public Procurement consultation: what will change and what will not?

Juli Lau, Colin Ricciardiello, Beth Edwards and Natasha Barlow analyse the Government’s response to the Transforming Public Procurement consultation.
<a href=

Momentum for Heat Network Roll Out Gathers Pace

Steve Gummer discusses the increased momentum for a Heat Network Rollout.
Icons Hazard

Unconscious Bias, Discrimination and a Warning to Public Sector Employers

Christian Grierson and Julie Bann discuss two employment tribunal judgements, which provide a stark warning to public sector employers about unconscious bias and discrimination.
Icons Hazard

Levelling up – A new opportunity for further devolution in England?

Rob Hann explores the Government's 'levelling up' policy and looks at whether it is an opportunity for further devolution in England.
Slide background