Original article ISPreview UK:
A new survey of 500 national landowners, which was conducted by telecoms investor AP Wireless UK – a company with a strong vested interest in this area, has claimed that 35% of respondents are considering terminating their mobile mast agreements, citing concerns over rent cuts, legal pressure and loss of trust in mobile network operators.
In the past it was not uncommon for landowners to extract highly lucrative rental agreements in return for allowing telecoms operators to deploy infrastructure on their land (e.g. mobile masts, trenches for fibre optic broadband cables etc.). But this could also make it far too expensive for network operators to expand their coverage, and thus inhibited the roll-out of new services, particularly in rural areas where network build costs are often disproportionately high.
NOTE: Prior to the revised ECC in 2017, many landowners hosting big masts would often receive rents worth between £5-7k per annum from mobile operators.
The previous government attempt to rebalance this in 2017 by revising the Electronic Communications Code (ECC) to make it easier and cheaper for network operators to access public or private land (here) – bringing rents more in line with other utility services. But that initially swung the problem in the other direction (here and here) and resulted in some providers, particularly mobile operators, trying to force the adoption of dramatically lower rents (e.g. sometimes slashing rents worth thousands to just a few tens of pounds).
The situation has since been improved through various tribunal rulings and wider political efforts to find a fairer balance, which has had some modest success (e.g. here and here), although experiences do vary. Meanwhile, the Government last year signalled that they intend to make a “renewed push to fulfil the ambition of … national 5G coverage by 2030,” which would at the very least require them to retain the current approach.
However the new survey, which also appears to have secured support from the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), National Farmers’ Union (NFU), and British Property Federation (BPF), is warning that landlords are now reporting rent reductions of up to 90% and a sharp rise in disputes, with more than 1,000 legal cases triggered to date. Suffice to say, many landowners aren’t happy and are thus becoming less receptive to reform in this area.
Key Survey Findings
➤ 1 in 3 landowners may walk away: 35% are considering terminating their mast agreements, citing rent cuts, legal pressure and loss of trust.
➤ Widespread legal threats: Among landowners whose leases have already expired, 68% say they have faced legal threats or pressure.
➤ Severe rent reductions: 82% say mast income is important; many report cuts of over 80-90%, undermining financial viability.
➤ Costs rising: 34% face additional costs from hosting – disproportionately affecting schools, charities and smallholders.
➤ Older agreements at risk: Most leases pre-date 2017 and now face retroactive downgrading if the reforms expand to 15,000 more sites.
➤ Renewal uncertainty: Just 23% are very likely to renew; nearly half remain undecided.
The issue has come to the fore again because landowners are worried about the government’s proposal to expand the current model to 15,000 more sites across England, Wales and Northern Ireland via full adoption of changes in the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act (PSTI). A decision on this expected later in the year. This issue has already resulted in land and property owners lobbying the government to suspend their reforms (here).
On the flip side, it’s important to remember that the government’s changes are all in the name of improving mobile network coverage and performance, particularly for remote communities that often suffer because operators normally find such deployments to be unviable. But sometimes the very people and organisations who complain about poor more signals, can also be those who disrupt the construction of new masts.
Thomas Evans, Executive Vice President at APWireless, said:
“This is a clear warning for ministers. Schools, hospitals, councils and farmers all host masts – and many are now prepared to walk away. If these proposals go ahead, thousands of sites that support mobile coverage for millions of households could be lost.
The government must hit pause and work with landowners, not against them, if it wants to avoid making Britain’s mobile connectivity crisis even worse.”
CLA President, Victoria Vyvyan, said:
“Many landowners who host mobile phone masts and support vital infrastructure don’t want to pull out of their agreements, but feel like they have little choice.
Some landowners have endured 90% rent cuts and hostile relationships, so it’s unsurprising that so few want to continue to host masts. As this survey shows, the behaviour of the mast operators has put the UK’s 5G rollout under threat and jeopardised the Treasury’s wider ambitions for economic growth and connectivity.
To close the unacceptable rural-urban digital divide the government must work to accelerate rollout, and to do that they must make sure landowners are treated fairly.”
The press release also states that “unlike previous generations of mobile infrastructure, 5G relies on a dense network of masts, many of them on private land,” which isn’t entirely accurate. Certainly, to get the most out of 5G and its support for higher frequencies (these aren’t all available yet – Ofcom will begin auctioning off the 26GHz and 40GHz bands next month), then a more complex and denser network is required. But this is more relevant to busy urban areas. In rural locations, the approach to 5G is much the same as it was for 4G, with lower and mid-band spectrum being preferable for its wider and more cost-effective geographic coverage.
Finally, it’s important to include a note of caution whenever leasing firm AP Wireless gets mentioned (inc. the affiliated Icon Tower company), since they have often been stepping in to buy mast leases from existing landowners and then charging mobile operators a premium to use the same sites (here). Many of the current industry disputes seem to revolve around this company.
As ever, the key challenge in making all of these changes is with doing them without significantly undermining or reducing the rights of existing or potential site providers (land/property owners etc.), which is easier said than done. So far, the government has been minded to continue with the PSTI’s intended reforms , and it will be interesting to see whether they make any concessions on that.
Like it or not, the government can’t please everybody on this one, but they also need landowners to play ball.
