Since the introduction of the revised Electronic Communications Code in 2017, the relationship between landowners and telecommunications operators has changed significantly.
One of the most common concerns raised by site providers is the decline in rental income achieved from telecoms masts. This is particularly when agreements are renewed or restructured under the new Code framework.
It is not unusual for landowners to say that telecoms masts now feel like more trouble than they are worth. Reduced rents, ongoing access requirements, operational disruption, and statutory protection for operators can all make site providers question whether hosting telecoms infrastructure remains commercially viable.
This often leads to a straightforward but deceptively complex question: Can I remove the telecoms mast from my land?
The short answer is that removing a telecoms mast is rarely simple and, in many cases, not immediately possible. Telecoms infrastructure plays a vital role in maintaining national connectivity, and the law is deliberately designed to protect network coverage.
However, there are specific circumstances in which a site provider may successfully secure removal of a mast. This article explores those scenarios, the legal framework behind them, and the practical realities landowners need to understand before taking action.
Why telecoms masts are difficult to remove
Telecommunications networks benefit from statutory protection to ensure that coverage is maintained for the public. Without these protections, operators would face constant disruption. This would make reliable mobile and data services impossible to deliver at a national scale.
The Electronic Communications Code, contained within the Communications Act 2003 and substantially reformed in 2017, grants network operators strong rights to install, maintain, and keep apparatus on land. These rights often extend beyond the terms of the original lease or agreement. This means that even when a contractual arrangement has expired, an operator may still be entitled to remain in occupation.
This protection exists for good reason. If telecoms masts could be removed easily at a landowner’s discretion, network coverage would become unstable. As a result, the law prioritises continuity of service over landowner convenience, making removal the exception rather than the rule.
Understanding the role of the Electronic Communications Code
The 2017 reforms to the Electronic Communications Code were introduced to support the UK Government’s ambition for nationwide digital connectivity, including full fibre and 5G rollout. One of the consequences of these reforms has been a shift in the balance of power towards network operators.
Under the Code, operators can often renew agreements on terms imposed by the tribunal if negotiations fail, and rents are assessed on a ‘no-network’ valuation basis. This approach assumes that the land has no telecoms use. This has contributed to downward pressure on site payments across the market.
Importantly for site providers, Code rights do not disappear simply because a lease ends. Operators may retain statutory rights to keep apparatus in place unless and until formal termination procedures are followed and the relevant legal tests are satisfied.
When removal may be possible
Although the law strongly protects telecoms apparatus, there are circumstances where a landowner can lawfully require removal. The most common and realistic route is redevelopment.
Both the Electronic Communications Code and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 provide mechanisms that allow site providers to terminate telecoms agreements where they intend to redevelop the land. However, these provisions are tightly regulated and subject to strict evidential requirements.
Redevelopment must be genuine, commercially motivated, and capable of being delivered. It cannot be used simply as a pretext to remove a mast.
What counts as redevelopment?
Development is defined broadly by section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as:
“the carrying out of building, engineering, mining, or other operations in, on, over or under land”.
This wide definition can encompass a range of works, from new construction to significant alterations or extensions. However, the courts have made it clear that not every scheme will justify removal of telecoms apparatus.
Key case law has shaped how redevelopment is assessed. In S Franses Ltd v The Cavendish Hotel, it was confirmed that landlords cannot rely on redevelopment grounds where the sole or primary purpose of the scheme is to remove an existing occupier. The redevelopment must be something the landowner genuinely intends to carry out regardless of the telecoms mast.
This principle was reinforced in EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v Meyrick Estate Management, where the tribunal emphasised that redevelopment must be commercially justified and not artificially constructed to defeat Code rights.
Demonstrating genuine intention
To successfully rely on redevelopment as a basis for removing a telecoms mast, a site provider must be able to demonstrate a firm and settled intention to carry out the works. This usually requires:
- A clearly defined redevelopment scheme
- Evidence of funding or financial viability
- Professional input, such as plans, feasibility studies, or contractor engagement
- A willingness to give a binding undertaking to the court to complete the works
The courts may require a landowner to commit to carrying out the development even if it becomes more expensive or less convenient than anticipated. This is a serious commitment, and site providers should consider carefully whether redevelopment remains commercially sensible once telecoms issues are factored in.
Practical examples of acceptable redevelopment
Not all redevelopment schemes will face difficulty. For example, adding additional floors to an existing building to create lettable accommodation is often a legitimate and commercially driven scheme. Provided the business case is sound and the works are not designed solely to remove telecoms equipment, such a proposal is unlikely to fall foul of the legal tests.
By contrast, minor works or contrived schemes that add little value and exist only to justify termination are unlikely to succeed. The substance of the proposal matters far more than its form.
The termination process
Even where redevelopment grounds exist, removal is not immediate. A formal legal process must be followed.
The site provider must serve statutory notices on the operator to commence termination of the telecoms agreement. The operator then has the right to serve a counter-notice if it wishes to remain in occupation. Where the parties cannot agree, the matter may proceed to the tribunal or court for determination.
Throughout this process, the operator’s ability to maintain network coverage is a key consideration. Operators are not required to vacate a site until alternative arrangements are in place to preserve service continuity.
Replacement sites and network constraints
One of the most practical barriers to removal is the difficulty operators face in securing replacement sites. Finding a suitable alternative location that meets technical, planning, and coverage requirements is often challenging. This is particularly true of urban or densely developed areas.
Prospective site providers may be reluctant to host telecoms equipment due to the same concerns faced by existing landowners, including low rents and operational disruption. As a result, operators may require significant time to identify, negotiate, and integrate replacement sites into the network.
Only once alternative coverage is secured will operators typically decommission an existing mast and remove their equipment.
Timescales and costs
While the Electronic Communications Code provides operators with extended notice periods to replace coverage, this can be frustrating for site providers. The process of achieving vacant possession is often lengthy, sometimes taking several years from initial notice to final removal.
Costs can also be significant. Legal fees, professional advice, potential delays to development, and the risk of litigation all need to be considered. In many cases, specialist input from both solicitors and surveyors is essential to manage the process effectively.
Is removal always the best option?
Given the complexity, cost, and uncertainty involved, removal is not always the most practical or commercially sensible outcome. In some cases, renegotiating terms, restructuring agreements or exploring lease capitalisation may provide better value while avoiding protracted disputes.
Each site is different, and the right approach depends on the landowner’s objectives, the nature of the property and the strategic importance of the telecoms installation.
How Loxley Maynard can help
Our team advises land and property owners on all aspects of telecoms infrastructure, including lease renewals, redevelopment strategies and the potential removal of a telecoms mast. We provide clear, independent advice on the Electronic Communications Code and work closely with legal advisers to help clients understand their options and risks.
If you are considering redeveloping land, renewing a telecoms agreement, or exploring whether removal of a telecoms mast may be possible, our team would be happy to discuss your circumstances and provide tailored advice.