Developing land with telecoms apparatus: How the Electronic Communications Code can impact project delivery

If you're acquiring or developing land with telecoms apparatus on it, the Electronic Communications Code (the Code) can significantly affect your timetable, your options, and your costs. Operators benefit from powerful statutory protections that can restrict a landowner's ability to relocate or remove apparatus. For developers, the key challenge is that telecoms issues are often identified part-way through a project. Understanding the position at an early stage can help avoid delays, unexpected costs, and difficult negotiations once a project is underway.

Why telecoms apparatus can be difficult to identify

Code Rights don't need to be registered, so title investigations alone may not provide a complete picture of the rights affecting a site. A physical inspection of the land is an important part of development due diligence. Even where apparatus is visible, it may not be immediately clear whether the operator has a formal Code Agreement in place.

The Code gives you a mechanism to find out. Once a prescribed notice has been served, an operator is required to tell you whether it has apparatus on the land and whether it has Code Rights allowing it to keep that apparatus there.  Using this process early gives you a clearer picture before you commit to a development programme.

Relocating apparatus: start with the Code Agreement

Where apparatus affects a proposed site, the first question is often whether it can be moved.

The starting point should be the Code Agreement itself. If it includes 'lift and shift' or relocation provisions, the operator will generally be required to comply with them.  Paragraph 100 of the Code expects operators to comply with the terms of their contractual obligations unless those terms conflict with the Code.

If there are no relocation provisions, relocation may depend on negotiation with the operator or the availability of statutory rights under the Code.

Removing apparatus: a more limited right

The circumstances in which a landowner can require the removal of apparatus are more limited.

Under paragraph 37 of the Code, you have a general right to require removal if you were never bound by the Code right, or if that right has come to an end. This may be, for example, where apparatus was installed pursuant to a business tenancy that has expired and where the primary purpose of that lease was not the installation of apparatus.

If the apparatus is on neighbouring land that affects your site, you may also be able to require removal, but only if the apparatus interferes with or obstructs a means of access that existed when the original Code Agreement was made. The right doesn't extend to access routes that are proposed or hypothetical.

Any attempt to exercise these rights requires strict compliance with the Code's notice procedures. Developers should ensure the correct process is followed. For example, if Ofcom has prescribed a form of notice, you must use it. If you don't, the notice won't be valid.  

Development can provide a route to termination

The Code recognises that development may justify bringing a Code Agreement to an end.

A site provider can serve notice on the operator to terminate the Code Agreement where it intends to redevelop all or part of the land (or any neighbouring land) and the proposed development cannot go ahead while the Code Rights remain in place.

The timescales involved are significant. The notice must give a minimum of 18 months' notice and must expire after the contractual term of the Code Agreement would have ended.  

This needs to be factored into development delivery plans, with telecoms strategy being considered as part of early-stage programme planning rather than once redevelopment proposals have been finalised.

The Code Agreement will terminate at the end of the notice period unless the operator serves a counter-notice or applies to court for an order.  Where the matter reaches court, a genuine intention to develop can take precedence over arguments relating to the public benefit of keeping the apparatus in place.

Proving your intention to develop

Where a Code Agreement is approaching the end of its contractual term, a developer seeking to oppose the imposition of a new Code Agreement must show sufficient intention to redevelop.

The courts apply a two-stage test – the developer must show both a reasonable prospect of being able to carry out the development, and a firm and unconditional intention to do so. A genuine intention to redevelop will override the operator's public benefit argument and the courts will not grant in favour of the operator where a developer can satisfy this test.

So the strength of your position depends on the quality of your evidence. Vague or conditional plans will not be enough.

Permitted development rights can accelerate deployment

Operators can benefit from deemed planning permission for certain types of development (including masts) under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, provided the works are for their electronic communications network and involve land they control under the Code.  

Where the relevant conditions are met, this can enable operators to deploy or upgrade apparatus without the need for a full planning application. As a result, telecoms apparatus could appear on land more quickly than you might anticipate. For developers, this further highlights the importance of understanding telecoms issues before committing to an acquisition or development project.

ADR can support commercial solutions

Where an operator wants to resist removal or termination, it must consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) before going to court and must include references to ADR in any counter-notice.

Although ADR can appear to introduce an additional step into the process, it can provide an opportunity to reach a compromise that works for both parties. If you approach ADR strategically, with clear evidence of your development intention and a realistic alternative for the operator, it can be a faster and more cost-effective route to resolution than contested court proceedings.

Key considerations for developers

From a developer's perspective, identifying apparatus quickly, understanding the operator's rights and building sufficient time into the programme can help improve the chances of a successful redevelopment. Developers should therefore:

• Inspect sites carefully. Title investigations may not reveal the full extent of telecoms rights affecting the land.
• Serve a disclosure notice early. Use the Code's disclosure mechanism to establish whether an operator has apparatus on the land and on what basis.
• Review any existing agreement. Check for 'lift and shift', relocation and break provisions. These create flexibility that statutory rights alone won't give you.
• Plan around the notice periods. An 18-month minimum notice period for termination means programme planning needs to start early.
• Build your evidence of development intention. Courts apply a two-stage test, and a conditional or aspirational plan won't be enough. The stronger your evidence, the stronger your position.
• Approach ADR strategically. Constructive engagement can often achieve a more commercially workable outcome than litigation.

If you'd like to talk through any of these points, our telecoms team is here to help.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at September 2026.  For more information see our terms & conditions.