Mast Challenge – Forsythia House, Lewisham

This is a significant case that clarified the meaning of “telecommunications mast” in planning law. The claimant brought judicial review proceedings against the defendant council’s decision that telecommunications antennae on “pole mounts” proposed to be built by a telecommunications company were not “masts” and its resultant refusal to take any enforcement action against their erection without planning permission.

Richard Buxton Solicitors had written to Lewisham Council on behalf of Mr Mawbey arguing that the newly installed pole mounts holding antennae on the roof of a block of flats across from his home were masts and thus required planning permission. The Council contended that the installation did not include masts, and therefore that the installation was permitted development, meaning that it did not require planning consent. The Council therefore refused to take any action. The claimant argued that the pole mounts supporting the antennae had to be regarded as masts, a view upheld by the High Court at first instance. The telecommunications company appealed; however, the Court of Appeal held in summary that the term “mast” should be interpreted broadly. The Court held that the meaning of the term “mast” in the General Permitted Development Order is a question of law. It analysed the dictionary definition in detail, as well as how the term had been applied elsewhere before finding in agreement with the lower court: that the apparatus in question constituted a mast. Thus, it fell outside the scope of permitted development rights and a formal planning application would need to be made. The case was heard by King LJ, Lindblom LJ and Holroyde LJ.

Andrew Parkinson of Landmark Chambers was instructed for the Claimant.