(Redacted) - Responses 105 to 130 - Law Commission

Consultation response 126 of 130
10.38 We ask consultees to tell us their views about the procedure for enforcing removal. Should
the onus remain on landowners to take proceedings? If so, what steps, if any, should be
taken to make the procedure more efficient?
Consultation Paper, Part 5, paragraph 5.49.
The burden should be placed on Code Operators to justify the retention of the apparatus on the
land affected and establish the public need. Without this, there is little incentive for the Code
Operators to do anything. Landowners/occupiers should be enabled to remove the apparatus,
after serving notice, if it is not removed by the Code operator within a set period, or if negotiations
are not concluded within a reasonable period (say 28 days from the service of any Counter
Notice).
10.39 We ask consultees to tell us whether any further financial, or other, provisions are
necessary in connection with periods between the expiry of code rights and the removal of
apparatus.
Consultation Paper, Part 5, paragraph 5.50.
If apparatus remains on site after the expiry of code rights, the landowner/occupier should be able
either remove it, or obtain exemplary damages based on the benefit to the operator (the call
income generated).
10.40 We provisionally propose that Code Operators should be free to agree that the security
provisions of a revised code will not apply to an agreement, either absolutely or on the
basis that there will be no security if the land is required for development.
Do consultees agree?
Yes, freedom of contract should apply.
Consultation Paper, Part 5, paragraph 5.51.
Page 1837 of 1868