A High Court judge ruled today that a series of 3m radio antennae mounted on top of a 10m tall building near south London’s Telegraph Hill conservation area, SE14, are “radio masts”, and therefore should not be erected under permitted development rules.
The case, which was brought by a Telegraph Hill resident opposed to the antennae, has forced the High Court to consider the meaning of the term “mast” in planning cases.
Lewisham Council had agreed that the support poles for the antennae were not masts because they were not ground based and were not tall enough. Therefore, they agreed that telecommunications company Cornerstone Telecommunications could erect it under permitted development rules.
However, in a ruling today, planning judge Mrs Justice Lang ruled that each of the poles were, in fact “a radio mast” as each one “supports antennae which transmit and receive radio waves”.
During the day-long trial, held earlier this month, Lang J heard submissions from lawyers for the council, the telecommunications company and the claimant on the meaning of the word “mast”. The result, she said, was “ambiguity”.
Lawyer for the claimant, citing the Oxford English Dictionary, said that “since the central poles were poles supporting radio antennae which were sending and receiving radio waves, they were ‘radio masts’”.
However, the council and the telecommunications company “submitted that a pole that supported antennae was not necessarily a mast,” she said in her ruling.
The company argued that a radio mast was “a tall, self-supporting structure that supports antennas at a height where they can satisfactorily send and receive radio waves and is capable of providing 360 degrees of coverage from a single position”.
Lang J found that definition to be too specific.
“In view of the ambiguity of the term ‘mast’ and the conflicting interpretations of it, I consider it is appropriate to have regard to the statutory purpose” she said.
The General Permitted Development Order rules (GPDO) do allow telecommunications apparatus to be fitted under permitted development rules. This is “to facilitate the installation of telecommunications infrastructure without the delay and uncertainty of applying for planning permission,” she said.
“However, the GPDO continues to place restrictions upon the height and location of ‘electronic communications apparatus’,” she said.
“The purpose … is to strike a balance between, on the one hand, meeting the need to expand telecommunications infrastructure, and on the other protecting surrounding neighbourhoods from an unacceptable adverse visual impact.”
Therefore, she said, there are “more stringent regulations” for protected areas. Public safety is also a reason to restrict development.
She said that the poles in this case are almost as big as “stub masts” and just as unsightly. As they are on the roof of a building, they are also closer to the road than a stub mast.
“This is an illogical conclusion, and inconsistent with the purpose of the legislation,” she said.
“For these reasons I conclude that the defendant wrongly interpreted paragraph A.1(2)(c) of Part 16 of the GPDO … by finding that the support poles installed at the building were not masts.”
“The defendant reached an irrational decision. The claim for judicial review is therefore granted.”
Nigel Mawbey v Lewisham Council
Planning Court (Lang J) 16 Feb 2018
