Rural View: Did anything happen in 2019?

Behind the cacophony and chaos that was nearly Brexit in 2019, you may be forgiven for thinking that not much happened beyond a change of prime minister and this week’s general election. As we approach Christmas and 2020, let us look back before looking ahead to better times to come. Telecoms 2019 was a year of active skirmishing under the Electronic Communications Code (the Code), with a steady flow of cases on some of the side-issues. After initial cases in 2018, we had: EE Ltd and another v London Borough of Islington [2019] UKUT 53 (LC). Payment under the old Code had previously been agreed at £21,000 pa but an agreement was now sought under the new Code. The vital importance of complying with Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) directions meant that some of the respondent’s submissions were not accepted. Code agreements do not have to be leases, and where an order is made by the UT, its order is effectively the agreement. Compensation of £2,551 had been offered, but it was also argued that the compensation should be minimal, ie £1. The respondent claimed £13,250. The UT determined the amount at £1,000, but held the operator to its offer of £2,551. In doing this it looked at information such as the level of service charges for the maintenance of the building. Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates [2019] UKUT 107 (LC); [2019] PLSCS 65. As another operator was already in occupation of the site, the UT held it had no jurisdiction to impose an agreement. The rest of the judgment is of interest for its discussion of valuation approaches, even though the UT did not need to decide on this point. Comparable evidence drawn from other small rural sites used for different purposes could be helpful, particularly if there was a realistic prospect of that same use on the site under consideration. Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Keast [2019] UKUT 116 (LC); [2019] PLSCS 69. Vodafone wished to transfer this site, on a farm in Cornwall, to CTIL. The respondent objected. The UT found in favour of the operator on all points in a decision mainly of interest for detailed procedural points. Evolution (Shinfield) LLP and others v British Telecommunications plc [2019] UKUT 127 (LC); [2019] PLSCS 71. An existing cabinet would block a new access to a new development site. Removal would cost £300,000 and take 32 weeks. The landowner/developer had to pay for the removal, not the operator. Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Central Saint Giles General [2019] UKUT 183 (LC); [2019] PLSCS 106. The dispute was agreed, so the case was entirely about the payment of costs. The UT made a very limited award to each side (£5,000), with notably trenchant comments about the behaviour of parties in these cases: “…operators … cannot simply demand unquestioning co-operation from property owners. The claimant’s wooing of potential site providers has become a little less rough, but its technique still has a long way to go.” EE Ltd and another v Chichester [2019] UKUT 164 (LC). The UT rejected the estate’s proposed redevelopment scheme (as a means of obstructing the imposition of a Code agreement) as merely a device to defeat an order. The proposed development was the replacement of an old pole with a new one of their own to provide estate-wide broadband. Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Ashloch Ltd and another [2019] UKUT 338 (LC); [2019] PLSCS 216. CTIL sought to renew an existing lease using the new Code. No, said the UT, this would be a matter for the county court under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. This appears to mean that the new Code is for new agreements only – which could have wide-ranging ramifications. Look out for appeals on at least one of these cases in 2020 and, after this early probing of defences, a major case or two on how the valuations work. Any other business? Draft legislation came and went, in particular the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill. There will be more to follow in 2020 and it looks as if we shall have to learn a lot more about public money for public goods. In Wales, the government started work on Area Statements. All Wales, including its coastline, must be covered by an Area Statement in 2020, which should enable better protection of the environment. We shall see more clearly next year how they will work. There was good news for capital taxpayers from the courts and tribunals. In Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs v Higgins [2019] EWCA Civ 1860; [2019] PLSCS 210, HMRC tried to deny principal private residence relief from capital gains tax for a period when the apartment in question was being built. Higgins had contracted to buy the property, construction (and therefore completion) were delayed and HMRC argued that his period of occupation started with the exchange of contracts. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) rejected this argument, the UT accepted it and the Court of Appeal has now rejected it again. More cheer came in Charnley v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKFTT 650 (TC), where the FTT allowed a claim for both agricultural and business property reliefs on an agricultural property substantially let for grazing, on the ground that the farm’s owner took a very active role in managing the property itself and the grazier’s cattle. Not such good news though in Foster v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs [2019] UKUT 251 (LC), concerning the valuation of 6.4 acres for inheritance tax. HMRC contended for £850,000; the taxpayer for £191,700. The UT concluded £590,000, based on a residual “top-down” approach from a gross development value of £2.483m. This was necessary because the available comparables were not up to the job. What next? And finally, for 2020? Trees, lots of trees, with all the main parties having promised to plant them in their millions to save the world. The key questions here will be where will they come from, who will plant them – and where? Happy Christmas. Charles Cowap is a rural practice chartered surveyor Image © Philip Silverman/Shutterstock