(Redacted) - Responses 105 to 130 - Law Commission

Consultation response 106 of 130
THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS CODE (CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS)
REGULATIONS 2003
10.60 We ask consultees to tell us:
(1) whether they are aware of circumstances where the funds set aside under regulation
16 have been called upon;
(2) what impact regulation 16 has on Code Operators and on Ofcom;
(3) if a regime is required to cover potential liabilities arising from a Code Operator’s
street works; and
(4) if the answer to (3) is yes, what form should it take?
Consultation Paper, Part 9, paragraph 9.14.
We are not aware of any circumstances under which the funds that we have set aside under
regulation 16 have been called upon.
10.61 We ask consultees for their views on the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions
and Restrictions) Regulations 2003. Is any amendment required?
Consultation Paper, Part 9, paragraph 9.39.
Yes. Regulations 5, 6, 7 and 8 should be removed as unnecessary duplications of the planning
system. These regulations reiterate conditions that were set out in the licences granted under
Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and require notifications to be given to local
planning authorities in certain circumstances. The privatisation of telecommunications then
introduced was matched by permitted development rights introduced in 1985. At that time, the
town planning system was UK wide and the rights then introduced allowed amongst other things
the installation of masts up to a height of 15 metres, without any form of detailed control on siting
and appearance. The licence conditions therefore provided a check in the case of inappropriate
installations – although as far as we are aware have never been exercised.
Since that time, permitted development rights have been scaled back to different degrees across
the four UK regions, but even in England and Wales, where they are widest, the more significant
ground based and rooftop based installations fall under the prior approval system. The
determination than carried out by the local planning authority should therefore take into account
matters such as the setting of any nearby listed building.
These regulations therefore now offend the usual principle of non-duplication of controls and in so
doing impose an unnecessary administrative burden. The fact that no local planning authority has
ever responded to the many thousand notifications we have made over the years is clear
evidence that these regulations are no longer required.
Page 1380 of 1868