The operator in this reference, Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited ("CTIL"), required a new site to serve an area including the approaches to London Bridge Station, Borough Market and local hospitals. It identified a building known as 1 London Bridge as a potential replacement site for its electronic communications apparatus ("ECA") which was then located on a building in Borough High Street. However, the building's suitability for the installation of the operator's ECA needed to be assessed by the operator's contractors carrying out a survey, otherwise known as a multi-skilled visit ("MSV"), of the rooftop of the building.
CTIL applied to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) ("UT") for an order under paragraph 26 of the Code seeking the imposition of an agreement, on an interim basis, granting it access to the rooftop to carry out the MSV, as well as a right to carry out intrusive investigative works by which it would take up parts of the rooftop to assess the building's structure and suitability for its ECA.
The leaseholder of the building, St Martins Property Investments Limited, did not object to CTIL accessing the rooftop, but the issue turned on the terms under which access should be granted and, in particular, whether it was appropriate for intrusive investigative works to be permitted and, if so, to what extent. The leaseholder persuaded the UT that access should be granted only for non-intrusive investigative works at this stage, and to the extent that CTIL needed to later carry out investigative works of a more intrusive nature, it would be appropriate for intrusive investigations to be considered at a later stage. In addition, the UT was not prepared to order CTIL to reimburse the cost of a specialist telecommunications agent supervising access, and noted that in principle where non-intrusive investigations are being undertaken professional supervision is not something which operators should be expected to pay for. As to costs, the UT awarded the leaseholder its full transactional costs but only awarded a small proportion (£12,500 against £82,500 claimed) of its litigation costs, reiterating the warning in CTIL v Central Saint Giles General Partner Limited [2019] UKUT 183 (LC) that the Code regime is intended to facilitate the provision of telecommunications services at limited cost, and parties should ensure that costs do not become disproportionate to the matter at hand.
For further details, please click here.
