The Electronic Communications Code gives landowners limited grounds on which to seek the removal of telecoms masts from their land. The ground relied on most frequently is the “redevelopment” ground.
In Vodafone Limited v Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited and AP Wireless II (UK) Limited (February 2025) the Upper Tribunal considered the “redevelopment” ground and provided guidance on how the term “redevelopment” should be interpreted.
Although further guidance on this issue is welcome, the interpretation given by the Tribunal may be open to challenge based on the issues that it will cause in practice.
The decision
In the case, Icon Tower erected a large new telecoms mast in close proximity to a number of existing masts used by Vodafone, O2, EE and Three. Icon then tried to force those operators to move their equipment from their existing masts on to Icon’s new mast.
Part of Icon’s strategy involved terminating the operators’ existing agreements in reliance on the “redevelopment” ground. Icon had served a termination notice on Vodafone and the matter had come before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal decided that Icon could not satisfy the “redevelopment” ground, primarily because the physical removal the operators’ existing masts did not amount to “redevelopment”. It held that “redevelopment” required not only the demolition of existing structures on the land but also replacing them with something new.
Is this the correct approach?
The requirement to replace existing structures with something new represents a significant departure from case law concerning ground (f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Under the 1954 Act, a landowner can end a tenancy where they intend to demolish the building subject to the tenancy.
On the face of it, this difference in approach may be surprising given that the “redevelopment” ground in the Code was explicitly modelled on the equivalent ground in the 1954 Act.
In practical terms, the Tribunal’s decision could mean that a landowner seeking to demolish their building (for example for building safety reasons) but who has no immediate plans to rebuild or replace that structure is prevented from doing so purely because there is telecoms equipment installed on it. This seems difficult to justify in principle.
It could be argued that a landowner in this situation should rely on the “prejudice” termination ground. However, the Tribunal has made it clear that due to the significant public benefit obtained through the availability of electronic communications services, the level of prejudice required to satisfy the ground must be “very high indeed”. As a result, relying on this ground may not represent an easy solution.
If a landowner is prevented from demolishing their building, they may be able to claim compensation from the relevant operator under the Code, however the rules relating to compensation can be complex and is by no means guaranteed.
As a firm which acts exclusively for landowners against telecoms operators, we anticipate the Tribunal’s interpretation of the “redevelopment” ground in this case will be subject to further legal challenge.
For more information, contact our team.