Rooftop Arbitration Award London NW10

In a recent award between an EPC client and T-Mobile an arbitrator awarded a rent of £16,000 in a review dating to June 2008. The site was a rooftop telecoms site in London NW10.

JUDGE SHOWS TELECOMS VALUES MUST BE 'FAIR'

In the recent case of Bridgewater Canal Company Limited v Geo networks 2010, the High Court indicated clearly that operators acquiring rights must pay fair value for them. The case concerend a linera obstacle but inviolved the principles of applying the Telecoms Code in detail. Here is an extract from the judgement:

"In addition, the consideration must be "fair and reasonable". It does not seem to me to be fair that an operator should have something for nothing. If he acquires something of value to him, fairness seems to me to require that he pays for it. As I have said, Mr Elvin warned against allowing persons in control of linear obstacles extracting ransom payments from operators. However, it seems to me that the use of the phrase "fair and reasonable" precludes the extraction of a ransom payment, as Mance LJ observed in Cabletel. Once that objection has been cleared out of the way, I do not consider that there is a compelling argument against the payment of consideration by an operator.

In my judgment, therefore, what the operator must pay for is the right to carry out the works; which right carries with it the right to keep the works on (or under or over) the relevant land in accordance with whatever terms and conditions the arbitrator awards. The price payable must be fair and reasonable but will take into account everything that the operator acquires by carrying out the works. Because the price is one that is fair and reasonable it will not include a ransom value. Accordingly, I consider that the arbitrator came to an erroneous conclusion. “

Evergreen Property Consulting
Contaminated Land & Remediation PDF Print E-mail
Written by Michael Fletcher   
Monday, 15 August 2011 08:23

EPC also deals with contaminated land remediation.

As most devleopers are aware housng policy favours brownfield land, and there are tax reliefs of up to 150% for land remediation.

Amongst the many methods for treatment that may be required, EPC has an agreement with a specialist US based chemical manufacturer to supply and implement novel methods of remediating hydrocarbons, acids and leachate contamination without the need to transport marterial off site. These chemicals are highly effective of chemical, especially hydrocarbon pollutants. The products are 0-0-0 hazmat organic substances approved by the US and UK Enironment Agencies.

These chemicals can also be used in emergency situations and will remiove the flash opint and slippage riosks from spilled petroleum products.

The methods we have at our dispisal are substantially lower costs than traditional treatment methods, and avouid teh need for transporting material off site. They are fast  and completely effective.

Applications to date include:

Oil spills in waste recycling depots

Oils in quarries

Oils in clays beneath harbour developments.

Removal of fire foams, acids, effluents, diesel spills and leachates

Our service included soil testing before and after, method statements, all treaments and labour - a total turnkey service.

 

 

 

 

Oil spill diesel petroleum hydrocarbon macondo retardant foam evironmental remediation disaster contamination pollution leachate effluent
Last Updated on Monday, 15 August 2011 10:48
 
Landlords Reject Network Site Sharing

Most site owners will have had letters from Vodafone or O2 demanding arbitrary rent reductions on sites in order to support 'sustainability' of the operator's telecoms site, -- and by the way the right to share FREE OF CHARGE, and no they won't pay any variation costs.

EPC's advice is that most landlord's can see this for the nonsense it is. Either the operators wish to retain sites or they do not in accordance with a sensible radio network planning requirement. If the site is reasonably not needed then what is the point of agreeing to cut the rent until a valid NTQ expires? If it is needed why should it be worth any less than its market value , at present, PLUS the amount for adding sharers?

Put simply, acceptring any kind of reduction is bidding against yourself. Operators are asking fro such reductions even on under rented sites. Indeed too many sites are susbatantially under rented as it is. Reductions are simply not justified.

What operators are aslos doing is making dummy approaches to landlrod on adjacent sites seeking cheaper lease terms. These simply do not come to fruition and most are simply a 'stalking horse' . The advbice to owners with telecosm is stay with your lease. Advice to owners receiving approaches is BE CAREFUL: telecoms ttenants will extract from you, with alctrity, more money than they ever pay you in rent due to poor lease terms and can be a disporportionately costs nuisance to the management of your property.

IF YOU MUST HOST TELECOMS OPERATORS:

DO NOT DO IT AT A RENTAL WHICH DOES NOT PAY YOU PROPERLY FOR THE RISK THEY BRING

DO NOT ACCEPT TERMS YOU ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH.

THEY NEED THE SITES MORE THAN MOST LANDLORDS NEED A FEW THOUSAND POUNDS.

DO NOT THINK THESE ARE SIMPLE CONTRACTS.

DO NOT BELIEVE YOU ARE DEALING WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE

If you want a good guide on the rental vaue for your site look up its rateable value on the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) web site. Revaluations were undertaken in 2010 and are very accurate.

Owners who take operators reductions are in most cases chaotically bidding against themselves and would not do so if they had took advice. That is no way to make an investment decision, one must do the reasearch and take advice. It is nonsense to suggest that companies like Vodafone or O2 and EEL will or can plan the networks, which they have  as statutory duty to maintain, accoring to whether a landlord will cut the site rent.

The operatior's  letters are pure "FUD" (fear uncertainty & doubt), and old fashioned sales ploy

Achieving condolidated networks is obviously very valuable and will save of capital, overheads and business rates. No one does not respect the objective. However, the commercial benefit is just the same as before, if not actually greater, to the two (or beware.. - more!) companies using the site.

How do you respond? - Refer the operaor to their lease, they are contractually bound by that. If they quit they probably would do so anyway. If they stay they will have to negotiate terms. at their expense, adding the sharing rights.

Owners of two or more sites need to think logically. The operatros will very likely consolidate at least some sites, accepted, but the commercial value is the same. The terms gained for grant of sharing rights should balance any loss and reflect current market values. The operators are not in a position to dictate that market.

If the operators were to acquire these righst under the telecoms Code they would have to pay a 'fair and reasonable' value under the law. There is no duty for small landlowers to subsidise large international corporations.