Phoebe St Leger-Davey and James Harrison v First Secretary of State and Winchester City Council and Orange PCS Ltd
Series: Property, Planning and Compensation Reports ; [2005] 2 P & CR 6, 86-96 (11)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2004] EWCA Civ 1612, 1 December 2004. Appeal by LD and another against a HC decision ([2004] EWCA Civ 1612) refusing an application to quash a decision of an inspector appointed by the First SoS on 19 August 2003 following a public inquiry. The inspector had allowed an appeal by O against the refusal of Winchester City Council to grant prior approval for the siting and design of an 11.79m high telecommunications mast and an equipment cabin. The consideration for the basis of the appeal is whether the inspector took account of and correctly considered the effect of the code power granted by the statutory telecommunications code contained in the Telecommunications Act 1984 Sched 2. The availability of suitable alternative sites was also a key issue. Upheld the HC decision that the inspector after considering the relevant development policy, PPG8, the compulsory purchase powers available to telecommunication operators under the telecommunications code and possible alternative sites had reached the correct conclusion. Appeal dismissed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS68565 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 128285-1001 | |
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 128285-2001 |
[2004] EWCA Civ 1612, 1 December 2004. Appeal by LD and another against a HC decision ([2004] EWCA Civ 1612) refusing an application to quash a decision of an inspector appointed by the First SoS on 19 August 2003 following a public inquiry. The inspector had allowed an appeal by O against the refusal of Winchester City Council to grant prior approval for the siting and design of an 11.79m high telecommunications mast and an equipment cabin. The consideration for the basis of the appeal is whether the inspector took account of and correctly considered the effect of the code power granted by the statutory telecommunications code contained in the Telecommunications Act 1984 Sched 2. The availability of suitable alternative sites was also a key issue. Upheld the HC decision that the inspector after considering the relevant development policy, PPG8, the compulsory purchase powers available to telecommunication operators under the telecommunications code and possible alternative sites had reached the correct conclusion. Appeal dismissed. View judgment at www.bailii.org.