Schedule 1: The electronic communications code Part 12: Rights to object to certain apparatus
Part 12 of the code sets out the rights that particular persons have to object to certain types of apparatus and the time periods within which those objections may be made. The rights do not apply to persons whose agreement is required under Part 2, since those persons’ rights can be considered and established in the context of negotiating the code agreement. The rights in this Part apply to persons who may be affected by the installation of apparatus but whose agreement is not required for the installation of such apparatus. The nature of the right to object depends on how soon the objection is made after installation of the apparatus. Rights to object are significantly more restricted if objection is made later than 12 months after installation. Rights to apply to "the court" (See Part 16, paragraph 94) to pursue an objection are subject to specific time periods.
	Paragraph 77 sets out which people are eligible to object and which types of apparatus they are able to object to.
	Paragraph 77(7) is an exception to the right to object. It provides that there is no right to object if the new apparatus installed is not substantially different from apparatus that it is replacing and is not in a significantly different position.
	Paragraph 78 provides that the right to object is exercised by giving notice to the operator. The right to object and the procedure for exercising this right depend on whether notice of objection is given within 12 months of installation, or after that period.
	Paragraph 79 sets out the procedure and the time periods that apply if objection is made within 12 months of installation. After two months of having given notice, but within four months of having given notice, the objector may apply to the court to have the objection upheld. The court must uphold the objection if two conditions are met. The first condition is that the apparatus materially prejudices the person’s enjoyment of, or interest in, the land. The second is that the court must be satisfied that there are possible alterations to the apparatus which:
	(a) will not substantially increase the cost of or diminish the quality of the service provided to users of the network;
	(b) will not involve the operator in substantial "additional expenditure". Additional expenditure in this context has a particular meaning: it is not the cost of altering the apparatus that is taken into account in assessing additional expenditure, but rather the difference in cost between the original installation and the additional cost of the proposed altered installation if the latter had been installed from the outset. Similarly if the court considers that the apparatus has been unnecessarily installed, expenditure incurred in removing it is not to be taken into account; and
	(c) will not give another person a right to object "at least as good" as the first objector’s. Subparagraph (c) can be illustrated by an example. Person A objects to an installation of apparatus because it prejudices A’s enjoyment of A’s land. The court determines that the only possible alterations to the apparatus which would address A’s objections, would themselves prejudice person B’s enjoyment of B’s land and would give B a right to object as strong as, or stronger than, A’s objection. If that is the case, the court is not required to uphold A’s objection.
	If these conditions are met, the court can require the apparatus to be changed or moved, and (in either case) the court can direct that further objections may not be made against an installation authorised by the court.
	Paragraph 80 provides the procedure that applies if the notice of objection is given later than 12 months after installation. After two months of having given notice, but within four months of having given notice, the objector may apply to the court to have the objection upheld. The court’s powers are more limited than under paragraph 79. It may uphold the objection only if it is satisfied that the alteration is necessary to enable the objector to carry out an improvement to the land and the alteration will not substantially interfere with the operator’s network service. Sub-paragraph (7) provides that the objector must, unless the court orders otherwise, pay the operator’s costs of the alteration.
	Paragraph 81 sets out limitations on the court’s powers where the court is considering making an order under paragraph 79 (directing the alteration of any apparatus or authorising the installation of any apparatus) or under paragraph 80 (directing the alteration of any apparatus). The court must not make an order unless the operator has the necessary code rights to effect the alteration or unless the court imposes such code rights as are necessary to effect the alteration. The court also has the power under this paragraph to require the objector to bring matters to the notice of other interested persons.