Appellant erecting telecommunications tower — Appellant affixing notice as required by Schedule 2 to Telecommunications Act 1984 — Notice not legible from publicly accessible land — Whether notice valid for purpose of fixing limitation period for registration of objections — Appeal allowed
The appellant telecommunications company erected a telecommunications tower on land close to that owned or occupied by the respondents. In July 2001, the appellant affixed a notice to the tower to enable any interested party to register an objection, as required by para 18 of Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984*. Although the notice was legible from a reasonable distance, it was possible to read it only when standing upon land owned by a third party. In January 2002, the respondents served a notice of objection, which the appellant maintained was out of time.
At first instance, the judge found for the respondents on the basis that potential objectors could not, as a matter of right, get close enough to read the notice, which was therefore invalid since it was not “reasonably legible” for the purposes of para 18. The appellant appealed on the issue of whether the inaccessibility of the notice prevented time from running for the purpose of registering the objection.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The requirement of legibility meant that the notice was to be placed at such a height on the apparatus, and was to be of such a size, that it could be read with reasonable comfort and would not be masked by part of the apparatus or by any other obstruction. Schedule 2 did not suggest that the public had to be able to read the sign from publicly accessible land. In cases where such land was not available adjacent to the apparatus, those who wished to see what the notice said could obtain permission from the relevant landowner to approach the notice, or could obtain the information from other sources, such as by reference to the planning permission.
Time had accordingly started to run at the date upon which the notice had been erected. The respondents’ notice of objection had therefore been served out of time.
* Objections could be raised within three months of the notice being put up: see para 17 of Schedule 2.
Richard Humphreys (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) appeared for the appellant; Alex Hall Taylor (instructed by Clyde & Co, of Guildford) appeared for the respondents.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
