The Electronic Communications Code: Key landowner rights and operator risks

For telecoms operators, relationships with site providers are fundamental to the deployment, operation and maintenance of electronic communications networks. While the Electronic Communications Code (the Code) gives operators extensive statutory protections, landowners retain important rights that can affect an operator's ability to install, retain and relocate apparatus. Understanding where those rights arise is essential to managing risk and avoiding disputes.

How the Code affects landowner agreements

A Code Agreement will generally bind not only the landowner or occupier who granted the Code Rights, but also their successors in title and anyone who later acquires an interest derived from that party's interest in the land. This gives operators a degree of certainty that the rights will continue to apply even if ownership of the land changes.

However, Code Rights can only be granted by the occupier of the land. Where the occupier is a tenant, operators should consider whether superior interests, such as the freeholder or a superior landlord, should also be party to the agreement. Otherwise, the grant may conflict with the tenant's lease or licence and the superior interest holder may not be bound by the Code Rights. To ensure the rights bind all relevant interests in the land, operators should carefully review the ownership structure before entering into an agreement.

Is your lease governed by the Code or the 1954 Act?

A commercial lease can be treated as a Code Agreement if the primary purpose of the lease was the installation and operation of apparatus. If it is, the Code governs renewal; not the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (1954 Act).

And that matters. The Code significantly limits a landowner's ability to recover possession, and the grounds for doing so are narrower than under the 1954 Act. The practical effect is that a site provider can only resist renewal in a limited number of circumstances:

• substantial breaches of the operator's obligations;
• persistent delays in making payments due under the Code Agreement;
• a genuine redevelopment scheme that cannot reasonably proceed unless the Code Agreement comes to an end;
• failure to satisfy the 'paragraph 21 test'.

The paragraph 21 test requires that the prejudice caused to the relevant person can be adequately compensated by money and that the public benefit likely to result from the order outweighs the prejudice to the relevant person.

For operators, this is a considerably more favourable position than standard business lease renewal. Even where a lease has been contracted out of the 1954 Act, this has no bearing on the right to renew a Code Agreement. The Code's renewal regime applies regardless. But these protections only apply where the agreement qualifies as a Code Agreement. Reviewing existing site agreements and understanding which statutory regime applies should therefore be a key part of portfolio management.

Can a landowner require removal of your apparatus?

Although the Code gives operators significant protections, landowners may still be able to require the removal of apparatus in certain circumstances. This will generally arise where the landowner was never bound by the relevant Code Agreement, or where the Code Agreement has come to an end.

A landowner may also seek removal where apparatus substantially interferes with or obstructs access to the land. However, that right is limited to interference with access routes that existed when the agreement was entered into, rather than any new or proposed means of access.

The Code imposes a formal notice and counter-notice procedure. A landowner seeking removal must serve notice specifying the basis for the request and a reasonable period for compliance. The operator then has 28 days to serve a counter-notice, either challenging the landowner's entitlement or setting out the steps proposed to secure Code Rights against them.

For operators, timing is critical. Failure to comply with the statutory process can lead to proceedings for removal and, potentially, compensation liability if the apparatus remains on site.

Lift and shift: Contractual relocation rights are important

If your agreement includes lift and shift provisions, you must comply with them if the landowner follows the correct process. The Court confirmed in PG Lewins Ltd v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd (2018) that where a lease includes provisions allowing the landowner to require relocation of apparatus and the operator fails to comply with a valid notice within the stated period, the operator cannot rely on its statutory rights under the Code to defeat a damages claim.

Compensation and diminished land value

Compensation is an important consideration for operators, particularly where Code Rights are imposed by Court Order. A site provider may be entitled to compensation for loss suffered as a result of the exercise of those rights, but compensation is not automatic. The loss must arise from the grant or exercise of Code Rights and be supported by evidence. As with other compensation claims, the usual principles of causation, remoteness and reasonableness applies, making speculative or unsupported claims unlikely to succeed.

In addition, paragraph 84 of the Code allows compensation to be awarded where Code Rights result in a diminution in the value of the affected land. That diminution is assessed using principles similar to those applied in compulsory purchases cases under the Land Compensation Act 1961. This can be particularly relevant where telecommunications apparatus affects the development potential, use or marketability of a site.

As awareness of the Code's impact on land values continues to grow, operators should expect compensation and diminution in value arguments to feature more prominently in negotiations and disputes. Early consideration of valuation evidence and potential compensation exposure can help to strengthen an operator's position and reduce the risk of unexpected claims.

Key considerations for operators

Practical steps for operators:

• Map your agreements against the Code versus 1954 Act distinction. The renewal regime differs significantly and the answer isn't always obvious from the face of the document.
• Check your party structure on any agreement granted by a tenant. If the freeholder isn't a party, your position could be vulnerable if that tenancy ends.
• Review your lift and shift provisions and make sure you have a process in place to respond to notices promptly and within the required timescales. Failure to respond promptly may increase the risk of liability.
• Consider your exposure on compensation. Where diminution in value is likely to be raised, operators should ensure that appropriate valuation evidence is available at an early stage.

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

Contributor: Michael Bogahalanda

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