What are the latest changes in telecoms law, as it relates to property litigation?
Author Ayesha Sheikh, Associate / Property Litigation Solicitor
The law around the installation and management of telecoms equipment (or electronic communications equipment) is complex, and can transform dramatically over a 12-month period.
In this article, we look at some of the most significant cases, and legal changes, that have taken place over the last year.
Valuation of telecoms sites
The valuation of potential telecoms sites is not straight forward. The rent is calculated based on the value of the land without the presence of the telecommunication equipment itself and so reflects greenfield, wasteland, or rooftop alternative use values. The valuation methodology can also differ depending on the type of agreement being created or renewed.In May 2026, Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure (“CTIL”) v AP Wireless (II) UK Ltd, concerning Redmarsh Industrial Estate, Fleetwood County Court considered the rent for a Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“LTA 1954”) lease renewal.
CTIL proposed a rent of £2,600 per annum. However, the site provider (the landowner) AP Wireless argued for a higher rent because this was an industrial estate rather than a rural site.
The Court found that this was not a rural unexceptional greenfield site (“RUGS”) which lacks any commercial environment.
The Court granted AP Wireless a rent of £4,500 per annum, to reflect the commercial setting of the site within an active industrial estate.
What this means for site providers:
This is a welcome decision for landowners, which shows that an assumption should not be made that all rural sites are RUGS.
If a site is near or in a major infrastructure or a commercial environment, the valuation should consider industrial comparables and may be able to achieve a higher rent.
Redevelopment
Under the Electronic Communications Code (the Code) if a landowner wishes to redevelop land which hosts a telecoms site, the landowner needs to prove a firm intention to redevelop, with the redevelopment unable to take place if the telecoms equipment remains in place.In the Queen’s Oak Farm case, the First Tier Tribunal granted Code rights to operator On Tower UK Limited (“On Tower”) where the site provider Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited (“Icon”) was unable to satisfy the redevelopment ground under Paragraph 21(5) of the Code.
Icon had board approvals, undertakings and planning consents which showed a genuine intention to redevelop the land by erecting its own telecoms tower on the site and this satisfied the subjective element of the redevelopment test.
However, it was found that Icon did not have a reasonable prospect of carrying out the redevelopment as its viability depended on persuading operators to site their equipment on the new tower which, it was found, they would not be able to achieve. Icon did not, therefore, satisfy the objective limb of the test. On Tower were therefore granted Code rights, having satisfied paragraph 21 of the Code.
Icon’s appeal to the UT about the intention to redevelop was dismissed in February 2026.
What this means for site providers:
This case highlights the importance, and difficulty, of being able to satisfy the subjective and objective tests of having an intention to redevelop under the Code
Landowners are advised to seek professional legal advice early on if planning to redevelop, particularly when it comes to preparing sufficient evidence to secure the removal of telecoms equipment.
Code Agreement Renewals
The Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 (Conferral of Tribunal Jurisdiction under the LTA 1954 etc.) Regulations 2026 came in to force from 30 July 2026 and apply where the primary purpose of the renewal is to confer Code rights. Proceedings started in the County Court before 30 July 2026 will continue in the County Court.The new regulations allow the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) and Upper Tribunal (“UT”) to hear renewals under the LTA 1954 for Code agreements, instead of the County Court.
What this means for site providers:
This will allow the FTT and UT to hear renewals under the Code and the LTA 1954 at the same time, rather than two separate sets of proceedings in different courts.
This is a welcome change for operators and landowners. The new regulations streamline the renewal process, significantly reducing associated time and costs.
The provisions came in to force from 30 July 2026 and apply where the primary purpose of the renewal is to confer Code rights. Proceedings started in the County Court before 30 July 2026 will continue in the County Court.
LTA 1954 or Code Agreement Renewal?
Code renewals govern how telecoms operators renew site agreements. The process for renewal differs depending on whether the site is protected by the LTA 1954, or the Code.The UT have recently once again confirmed in AP Wireless II (UK) Limited and (1) EE Limited and (2) Hutchison 3G UK Limited (the Equipoint case) that the occupational status of the operators determines how the operator can seek Code rights.
In this case it was found that after the expiry of the contracted out Lease, the operators had a tenancy at will and so could seek a new Code Agreement using paragraph 20 of the Code.
It was said obiter that if there had been a periodic tenancy, which grants security of tenure rights, the operators would have to seek a renewal pursuant to the LTA 1954 instead, although see below!
The UT in EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v London Borough of Wandsworth (2026) is a departure from the above decision. This appeal was in relation to Castlemaine House in London which had a telecoms site on the roof under a contracted out lease which expired in February 2013. In March 2024, the operators served a paragraph 20 notice seeking a new code agreement. The FT found that there was a periodic tenancy granting security of tenure protection under the LTA 1945 and so the operators could not seek a new agreement under the Code.
However, the UT ruled that the original lease was contracted out of the LTA 1954 and the parties by way of correspondence stating “lease expired” and “holding over” shows their intention was not to create a new periodic tenancy. It was held that there was a tenancy at will and so they could apply for a new agreement under the Code.
What this means for site providers:
It is essential at the very outset to determine, as far as possible, the status of an operators occupation as this will dictate the rights that the operators can seek and the procedure to be followed, although pursuant to the regulations discussed above, the forum for seeking a renewal pursuant to the LTA 1954 or under the Code will now be the FTT and UT.
