[2005] EWCA Civ 101, 14 January 2005. Examines whether an objector to the erection of a mobile phone mast had been deprived of her right under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6, to a fair hearing of her representations by the local authority because it had issued its notice of refusal of approval out of time. L (not accepting that its notice to refuse approval for the erection of a mast by TMUK under the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 was out of time, thus entitling TMUK to proceed under the scheme of the Order) served enforcement notices against TMUK, whose appeal was allowed by the inspector at the subsequent public inquiry, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s174(2). N contended on appeal that the inspector should have noted her deprivation of Art 6 rights and held that TMUK did not have lawful planning permission by writing words into the statutory scheme of the Order and the 1990 Act, pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 s3. "Held": appeal dismissed. Although N's Art 6 rights had been clearly infringed by L, s3 of the 1998 Act could not be used to deprive the innocent third party TMUK of its right to erect the mast. The inspector had no jurisdiction to take away TMUK's development rights permitted by the Order and N's Art 6 rights were simply not engaged on that issue. View the decision at www.bailii.org.