Telecoms Operators Accused of New Tactic to Reduce Rents on UK Mast Sites UPDATE

A new report has claimed that telecoms infrastructure providers in the UK’s mobile network sector are using “new tactics” to secure more favourable lease renewals on mast sites. The tactic is said to be enticing landowners to negotiate without professional representation (i.e. risking agreements that reduce rents or overlook key protections).

Regular readers will know that mobile and broadband operators have long battled with landowners over the level of rent paid for telecoms infrastructure, such as when deploying new mobile mast on private land (e.g. farms) or renegotiating related contracts further down the line.

Prior to 2017 it was not uncommon for landowners to extract highly lucrative rental agreements in return for allowing telecoms operators to deploy such infrastructure, which in some cases made it far too expensive for network providers to expand their mobile coverage and this could inhibit the roll-out of new services (particularly in rural areas where the cost of deployment is often disproportionately high vs urban builds).

The previous government attempted to rebalance this by revising the Electronic Communications Code (ECC) in 2017 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 telecoms providers, particularly mobile operators, trying to force the adoption of dramatically lower rents (e.g. sometimes slashing rents worth thousands of pounds 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, but experiences do vary. The reality today is that rarely does a month go by without one side or the other arguing the case for lower rents and more planning reform, or higher rents and greater restrictions on access. Meanwhile, the current government’s pro-planning reform agenda, which is partly intended to help facilitate their “renewed push to fulfil the ambition of … national 5G coverage by 2030”, is often seen as being closer to telecoms operators than landowners in its drive.

What’s the new tactic?

According to FarmingUK, telecoms operators have traditionally offered to cover legal and agent fees for landowners as part of negotiations over lease renewals for existing mobile sites. The approach, which is supported under the ECC (see below), effectively contributes towards “transactional costs” within a wider package designed to reach a “consensual agreement” and thus avoid tribunal proceedings, which might otherwise slow everything down and add costs.

Extract from the 2017 ECC

Part 14: Compensation under the code

Paragraph 84(2) enables the court to order compensation for reasonable legal and valuation costs incurred by a landowner. This is because the landowner’s reasonable costs in obtaining legal and / or valuation advice are part of the cost to a landowner of agreeing (or being ordered by the court) to have apparatus installed on their land. This provision does not however interfere with the court’s discretion to award costs that relate to a dispute about code rights. Paragraph 84(7) provides that compensation cannot exceed actual loss.

However, the report says that in “some cases” landowners are now being offered a one-off payment, which is said to be equivalent to the proposed professional fees. But this is allegedly done “on the condition [the landowner] proceeds without appointing an agent or adviser“. The concern raised by FarmingUK is that such an approach could result in landowners being less informed of their rights and thus more likely to accept weaker terms (i.e. reduced rents or overlooking key protections).

Mike Reid, Head of Energy at Property Adviser Galbraith, said:

“Under the Electronic Communications Code, the operator is required to cover the reasonable and proper professional costs of the site provider, with no fixed cap set in legislation. In practice, however, operators tend to agree to pay fees in legal undertakings up to agreed caps with provision for these to be extended by agreement.

Without professional advice, there is a real risk that key provisions are missed or diluted, particularly around matters such as the proper rental value of the site, redevelopment rights or other protections, which can have long-term detrimental implications for the site.”

The report fails to provide any evidence or examples of such cases to support their claims, or to name the companies involved, but it makes clear a warning that landowners should not trade short-term cash for independent advice as it could work against them. “The overall site value and protecting your rights over the longer term are far more critical than receiving a relatively small initial one-off payment,” added Reid.

ISPreview is currently engaging with mobile infrastructure providers and will report back once we’ve got their comment, in order to provide some balance or clarification.

UPDATE 23rd April 2026 @ 7am

We’ve had a response from the Mobile Infrastructure Forum (MIF).

A spokesperson for the the Mobile Infrastructure Forum told ISPreview:

“The Mobile Infrastructure Forum (MIF) strongly maintains that it’s participants primary objective is to secure consensual, long-term agreements that benefit both site providers and national connectivity. We always encourage all landowners to seek independent, specialist expertise to ensure they are fully informed and can engage with confidence throughout the negotiation process.”