Mobile phone giants Orange and 3 have won their High Court bid to retain mobile phone equipment in a conservation area in Highbury, north London.
High court judge Mr Justice Crane has allowed the challenge by Orange Personal Communications Services and Hutchison 3G against enforcement notices issued by Islington council in June for the removal of equipment at Canonbury Telephone Exchange site in Highbury Grove, London N5.
The council had issued the notices after designating the site within the Highbury New Park conservation area, even though the companies had previously been informed that planning consent was not required for the installations.
Orange erected six antennas, four dishes and an equipment cabin at the site in May 2002, and Hutchison later added three antennas and dishes, together with its own cabin.
The companies claimed that, prior to the conservation area designation, they had submitted detailed plans for the proposed installations and the council had stated that the works constituted “permitted development”, and therefore did not requiring planning permission.
Following the installation, the council issued enforcement notices for the equipment’s removal on the basis that it did not match the plans, was too high and was too close to neighbouring houses.
However, in January 2004, the notices were varied to require only that Orange and Hutchison amend the development to bring it in line with the initial plans.
In June 2004, with the compliance work substantially carried out, the council again reconsidered the scheme, and reissued notices requiring removal of the equipment.
In allowing the judicial review application, Mr Justice Crane ruled that the subsequent designation of the site as part of a conservation area could not affect the original grant of planning approval.
The judge said that the legislation contained insufficient indication that designation as a conservation area took away rights that had previously been crystallised and defined.
However, he warned the mobile phone operators that the remedy was “not necessarily to be regarded as appropriate in other cases”.
References: EGi News 10/05/05
