Landowners who host telecoms equipment on their land or buildings are being warned that values could come under pressure following a tribunal ruling on the code covering mobile phone and broadband infrastructure where a subsequent tenancy has been created.
The Upper Tribunal recently handed down a ruling in the case of Vodafone v Gencomp and AP Wireless.
The tribunal had considered who has the right to renew or modify an Electronic Communications Code agreement.
This statutory code governs the relationship between a landowner and a telecoms operator, trying to balance the landowner’s rights with the public’s need for communications.
See also: Report calls for rethink on phone mast rent valuations
The tribunal had looked specifically at how the code applies when a lease covering the site has been granted since the original telecoms agreement was established.
In this instance, a lease had come into force with another company, AP Wireless, since Vodafone had secured agreement for its mast.
The tribunal found the code states that the only person who can grant code rights is the original site provider – but if they are no longer the immediate landlord, as was the position in this case, they don’t have the power to change the agreement.
While the holder of the lease might have the power to do so, they are not recognised in the code.
As such, the tribunal found a gap in the code when a mast or cable agreement might be renewed or modified.
Stalemate
Jeremy Moody, secretary and adviser of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV), said this meant that a stalemate existed between the parties because neither could move for a renewal or modification of the operator’s lease.
Mr Moody said the tribunal then gave a very clear warning that this could result in major problems for landowners who want to develop land or buildings affected by telephone masts and cables.
This might apply to a farm building or structure, such as a grain store with a mast on it, or land with a cable running beneath it, and where that building or land had then been let on a tenancy.
“Given that many landowners grant intermediate leases like a farm business tenancy and this is also a structure used for some major development proposals, the tribunal warned of stark practical and valuation consequences which owners and developers will need to consider,” said Mr Moody.
The code may now have to be amended – Mr Moody suggested that this could be done through the Product security and telecommunications infrastructure bill which is being considered by the House of Lords.
“Failing that, it could be some time before another legislative opportunity is available,’’ he said.
