Whether a building owner is entitled to more than nominal consideration when compelled to allow access for a survey to ascertain whether its building is a suitable site for the installation of electronic telecommunications apparatus is a matter for the discretion of the First-tier Tribunal.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has considered this issue in Covent Garden IP Ltd v Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd [2025] UKUT 136 (LC).
Under the Electronics Communications Code operators such as CTIL can acquire – or the tribunal can impose – Code rights. These include interim rights which must be imposed by order. While Code agreements must provide for consideration to a site provider, interim agreements may do so.
The case concerned an office building known as Alder Castle in the City of London, owned by Covent Garden. CTIL had identified Alder Castle as a possible replacement site for electronic communications apparatus which it had been required to remove from a nearby building. Covent Garden allowed an initial inspection but became less cooperative as its own refurbishment scheme was developed.
CTIL made a formal request for an interim rights agreement to allow further investigations. When that was ignored CTIL referred the matter to the tribunal. In February 2024 the FTT gave directions. These included listing the matter for hearing on 16 July and providing that if the parties were unable to agree the consideration to be paid under the agreement either party could apply not earlier than 12 April (to allow time for negotiation) for permission to rely on expert valuation evidence.
Covent Garden did not resist an agreement in principle but wanted consideration of £2,000 in place of the nominal £1 offered by CTIL. On 19 June – four weeks before the hearing – it applied to rely on expert valuation evidence. The application was refused on 24 June on the basis that it was misconceived.
At the hearing on 16 July an application for permission to appeal the refusal was also refused and an order made imposing an agreement for the interim rights requested, for consideration of £1. Covent Garden appealed.
There is no principle that expert evidence cannot be relied upon in interim rights claims where appropriate. The FTTs decision of 24 June was materially irregular. However, the tribunal confirmed it. The FTT was entitled to decide in the exercise of its discretion on the material before it that it was not appropriate to include more than nominal consideration. Covent Garden’s application was hopelessly late, unaccompanied by any draft report proposing consideration, proposed an unrealistic timetable and would have disrupted the substantive hearing.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant
