10 Things Landowners Should Know If Approached By a Telecoms Operator for a Renewal of a Lease
1 – They may be relying on “Code rights”
Many telecoms Operators don’t approach landowners as ordinary commercial tenants. Instead, they use a special law called the Electronic Communications Code (ECC or “The Code”), which gives them strong legal rights to install, keep, and upgrade their equipment on land.
In practice, this means that if you refuse to give permission, the Operator can ask the court or Lands Tribunal to give them these rights anyway, as long as certain legal criteria are met. It is important to remember that “Code Rights” are not automatically granted just because an Operator is seeking them; they have to be imposed by tribunal, or agreed consensually between parties.
When making this decision, the tribunal considers the benefit to the public of better communication services, and weighs that against any inconvenience or loss to you as the landowner. Usually, the tribunal tends to favour the Operator’s position. Also, the payment you get for allowing the equipment is often based on what the occupied space would be worth without the network, rather than a commercial rent offer, typically resulting in lower compensation than regular rent.
The important thing for landowners to remember is that simply refusing or ignoring the Operator’s letters can make things worse. It might lead to a formal legal process that’s harder to influence and can limit your options later. It’s really helpful to understand early whether the Operator is planning on using the “The Code”, and what rights they are attempting to claim, so you can decide the best way to handle the situation.
2 – Don’t assume the proposal is “standard” or non-negotiable
Operators frequently present heads of terms or draft agreements as “standard”, “template”, or “industry-wide”. While certain clauses do reflect common “Code” wording, that does not mean the deal is fixed, especially before any rights are granted.
There is room to negotiate important everyday details that really matter, such as:
- Where and how the Operator can access the site
- Which costs are being incurred, and who is covering them
- Limits on working hours and notice for access
- The size and location of equipment
- Fencing, security, and safety responsibilities
- Reinstatement obligations if equipment is removed or damage is caused
- Compensation for future sharing, upgrading, or expansion of occupied space
- Break rights and what happens at the end of the term
Once rights are agreed or imposed, those protections are very hard (and sometimes impossible) to change or add protections later. Landowners should see the early stage before installation as the best, and often the only, chance to influence how the site impacts your property over many years. Asking early, “What parts can we actually negotiate?” can make a big difference.
3 – Once signed, your leverage drops dramatically
Before any agreement is completed, the landowner holds meaningful negotiating leverage. The Operator wants certainty, speed, and a clean route to installation, and that creates bargaining power.
Once an agreement is signed or the legal rights are set by a court, that power shifts. These legal agreements are intentionally made to give the Operator long-term security, make it hard for the landowner to cancel, and allow the Operator to keep or update equipment easily. If later on the arrangement becomes a problem, changing it can be slow, costly, and uncertain.
This is why early engagement is so important. Ignoring letters, delaying responses, or thinking you can handle things later often leaves you with too little time to negotiate better terms or look for other options. Getting expert legal and surveying advice early on gives you the best chance to protect your interests, reduce risks, and get the best possible deal under the law.
4 – Payment is often much lower than expected
Since changes to the “The Code”, the way telecoms sites are valued has changed dramatically. Payments are no longer based on what the site is worth to the Operator’s network. Instead, they are assessed on a “no network” basis, and (theoretically) the underlying land value.
Although the Tribunals have ruled that Landowners should not be “out of pocket”, in practise, this is still very much the case. “Code” agreements more often than not do not adequately reimburse Landlords for time and costs expended.
In practical terms, this has led to significant reductions in rent, particularly on renewals of older agreements. Some landowners have seen offers reduced by as much as 90% compared to pre-2017 levels. Sites that once generated several thousand pounds per year may now attract only a fraction of that.
While compensation for loss or damage can still be claimed separately, the shift in valuation has fundamentally altered negotiating dynamics. Landowners should not assume historic rental levels are a reliable guide when considering a new agreement or renewal.
Importantly, while ‘rent’ is assessed under the new valuation basis, compensation for loss or damage is a separate consideration. This can include:
- Professional fees
- Physical damage
- Loss of development value
- Additional management time
Ensuring these elements are properly identified and documented is critical. It’s also easier than it sounds; we have a simple form here to help!
5. Upgrades and Sharing Can Happen Without Extra Payment
Under the Electronic Communications Code, Operators have statutory rights to upgrade equipment and share sites with other Operators, provided certain conditions are met.
In practice, this means a mast on your land could host additional Operators or have equipment replaced or enhanced without any increase in ‘rent’. The old model (where sharing often triggered additional payments) no longer applies.
While the legal test for sharing and upgrades refers to “no additional burden”, the day-to-day reality can feel different. More sharing means more access requests, more engineers attending site, more vehicles, and more time spent on organizing and making sure everyone follows the access rules.
It is therefore important to keep clear records of time spent dealing with access, supervision, disruption, or other practical issues. Detailed evidence of additional burden can be crucial for compensation claims or if terms are reviewed in the future.
6. Removal at the End Is Not Automatic
Many landowners assume that when a telecoms agreement expires, the equipment must be removed. Under the Electronic Communications Code, that is rarely the case.
When the contractual term ends, the Operator will often remain in situ with statutory protection. To bring the agreement to an end, a landowner must serve a formal notice in the prescribed form and rely on one or more statutory grounds for termination. These grounds are limited and include, for example:
- A genuine intention to redevelop the land
- Persistent breaches of the agreement
- Substantial rent arrears
- That the public benefit of the site no longer outweighs the prejudice to the landowner
Simply wanting the equipment removed, or wishing to negotiate better terms, is not enough.
Even after a valid notice is served, the Operator can serve a counter-notice and require the matter to be determined by the Tribunal. The burden will then fall on the landowner to prove the relevant ground.
In redevelopment cases, this usually means demonstrating a firm and settled intention backed by evidence such as planning progress, funding arrangements, or a clear scheme.
Importantly, termination and removal are separate steps. Securing termination does not automatically mean immediate removal; further procedure may be required to compel the apparatus to be taken away.
For landowners with redevelopment plans or refinancing deadlines, timing is critical. The statutory process can be lengthy, and early strategic advice is essential to avoid costly delays.
7. Access Rights Can Be Broader Than You Think
When approached by an Operator, the draft agreement will usually contain wide-ranging access rights. Under the “The Code”, Operators are entitled to rights that are considered reasonably necessary for the installation, maintenance and operation of their equipment, and initial drafts often go further than many landowners realise when put into practise.
It is common to see provisions allowing full and free 24/7 access, vehicle access across retained land, often with no limits on time, day, or consideration to what maybe actually going on nearby. If left unrestricted, these rights can interfere with farming operations, livestock management, development plans, security arrangements or residential privacy, and the Operators will find it hard to justify that these meet the “Reasonable necessary” test to achieve.
While Operators do need reliable access, that does not mean the terms are non-negotiable. Practical controls can and should be built into agreements. These may include notice requirements (except in emergencies), defined access routes, restrictions during harvesting or key business periods, supervision requirements, reinstatement obligations, co-operative discussions on how works are to be carried out, and clear health and safety protocols (you can now see why I suggest keeping a clear record of burden for additional compensation!).
The detail matters. Poorly drafted access provisions will create ongoing management issues long after the agreement is signed, so it is essential that access rights are carefully reviewed and tailored to the way your land is impacted.
8. Health Concerns are Not a Blocker
One of the most common objections raised by neighbours is concern about potential health effects from telecoms equipment. Under UK planning policy, if a proposed installation complies with the guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), it is presumed to be safe. Concerningly, the Operators are trusted to “self-police” on such matters.
National planning guidance makes it clear that local planning authorities should not question health safeguards where an Operator provides an ICNIRP compliance certificate. As a result, objections based purely on perceived health risks are very unlikely to succeed (or even ignored), even where there is strong local opposition.
It’s important for landowners to understand this early on. The focus for Landowners and neighbours should be to raise concerns about how it looks, where it’s placed, design choices, disruptions to access, noise from machines, or effects on nearby homes tend to be the main issues discussed during the planning process that would help prevent a telecoms installation going ahead.
In simple terms, even though health concerns are often very important to people, they usually aren’t enough on their own to stop development if safety standards are being followed. Focusing on overall planning and the impact on the community is usually a more effective approach.
9. Development Rights Can Be Affected
Granting telecoms rights over your land is not just an income decision; it has long-term implications for value and future use. Equipment installed under the Electronic Communications Code benefits from statutory protection, meaning removal is not automatic and requires a formal legal process.
If you later wish to sell, refinance, or redevelop the site, the presence of apparatus complicates matters. Purchasers and funders are understandably wary of sites with protected “Code” agreements in place. Redevelopment must be delayed while termination procedures are followed, and even then, the Operators may refuse to leave and may seek to impose further rights in an attempt to maintain presence.
In some cases, relocation of equipment is possible, but this can involve negotiation, notice periods, and significant costs. Unless the agreement clearly deals with relocation scenarios, the financial and timing risk sits with the landowner.
For that reason, it is essential to future-proof any agreement. Provisions dealing with redevelopment breaks, relocation mechanisms, cost allocation and defined notice procedures should be carefully considered at the outset. What seems like a small compromise with a wider agreement can become a major constraint when development opportunities arise.
10. Professional Advice Pays for Itself
The framework created by the Electronic Communications Code is technical, and the valuation and legal principles differ significantly from ordinary commercial leases. Relying on a general property adviser can mean important issues are missed. Tribunal rulings are constantly changing how “the “Code” is interpreted. Using a specialist ensures that you do not miss out.
A surveyor and solicitor who specialises in dealing with telecoms matters will understand current market evidence, Tribunal trends, and the practical impact of Code rights. They will be able to negotiate improved terms, tighten access provisions, protect development interests, and secure appropriate compensation for matters such as crop loss, professional time, disruption or reinstatement obligations.
Importantly, “the Code” provides that property owners are entitled to recover their reasonable professional fees from the Operator in most cases. That means there is usually little or no financial reason to proceed without specialist advice. Your advisors should ensure that you do not have to pay for their services.
Given the long-term nature of these agreements, and the statutory rights Operators obtain, taking early professional advice is essential and will make a significant difference over the life of the arrangement.
Final Word:
Navigating telecoms agreements can feel complex, and the decisions you make now will affect your land for many years. Understanding your rights, the potential impact on your day-to-day business operation, development, and the opportunities to secure fair compensation is essential.
Though I hope this article has helped many of you understand some of the more complex issues around “the Code”, if you feel like you need assistance our specialist advisers are experienced in helping landowners through every step of the process.
We explain your options clearly, highlight practical considerations, and support you in protecting both your property and your long-term interests. Even a conversation early on can give you confidence and ensure that any agreement works for you.