A call to access?
Access on to land to facilitate telecoms work can be problematic. Is there a better way?
Access on to land and buildings to install or undertake work on electronic communications apparatus (such as antennas, base station equipment and fibre-optic cables) is a common point of friction between communications operators and the owners of the land/building on which the apparatus is located. This was highlighted by the Upper Tribunal’s recent decision in Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v University of London [2018] UKUT 356; [2018] PLSCS 188, which found that access for surveying purposes is a “Code right” under the new Electronic Communications Code. In addition, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport recently launched a consultation on amending the Code – “Ensuring tenants’ access to gigabit-capable connections” published on 29 October 2018 – to oblige landlords to facilitate access to their properties for operators to deploy apparatus where a service request is made by a tenant.
The proposal would see uncooperative landlords forced to permit operators to enter via a magistrates’ court-issued warrant of entry using powers similar to those which exist for other utilities.
For operators, easy access to land and buildings is key to the successful roll-out and operation of their networks. Their ideal access would be 24/7 and, where there are service-affecting faults, without delay.
For landowners and those managing estates and buildings, access by operators, their contractors and fibre and power service providers gives rise to building management difficulties, risks of business interruption, or damage or disturbance to crops, livestock or shooting seasons, security concerns, fire safety issues, the challenge of health and safety compliance, etc.
Operators complain that many landowners are obstructive regarding access. However, there are common complaints from landowners that operators and their contractors ignore their specific site access procedures and do not understand issues affecting property, its safety and management (all of which can lead to delays in permitting access).
Many landowners feel that they bear an unacceptable proportion of the costs of ensuring that access to and works on a site are conducted in a safe manner, with minimal disruption to others using the site.
Access as a Code right
The Code recognises the need for operator access on to land. The suite of “Code rights” in paragraph 3 of the Code that may be granted or contained in a court-imposed Code agreement includes rights for an operator, where apparatus is used in providing an electronic communications network, to:
- install apparatus on land;
- carry out works for or in connection with the installation of apparatus on land; and
- enter land to inspect, maintain, adjust, alter, repair, upgrade or operate any electronic communications apparatus on the land.
However, the Code contains no express right of entry for installing apparatus or prior to such installation. This led to the argument that operators have no right to access land to undertake surveys and preliminary investigations. Nonetheless, in Cornerstone, the Tribunal had no difficulty in concluding that the right to undertake preliminary surveys is a Code right: “otherwise the grant of the right [to install] would be illusory.” This is perhaps unsurprising given that the Digital Economy Act 2017 aims to facilitate the roll-out of digital infrastructure.
Ofcom’s Electronic Communications Code – Code Of Practice sets out best practice for landowners and operators to establish, develop and maintain effective working relationships, “to facilitate positive and productive engagement between all parties” to Code agreements, including site surveys and ongoing access. It suggests that:
- parties meet before entering into a Code agreement to discuss preferred access routes and processes and agree expectations as to what should happen when access is required;
- access for routine maintenance is organised so that operators can give sufficient notice in accordance with the access arrangements agreed with the landowner;
- in the case of emergencies (eg where there is a service-affecting fault), operators contact the landowner to explain when and why access is required;
- anyone accessing a site on behalf of operators carries photographic identification and can explain why they are there and for whom they are working; and
- operators adhere to any legal or regulatory requirements for managing location-specific risks.
These are sound and sensible suggestions. Sadly, best practice is often not followed and many issues seem to stem from the fact that landowner access procedures and contact details are rarely recorded in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion. This leads to the relevant information rarely, if ever, reaching the many (often tiered) contractors used by operators. Risk assessments and method statements are also frequently too generic when first received and it can be very labour-intensive for landowners to liaise with contractors to get them into an acceptable state.
Is there a better way?
With the demand for connectivity growing exponentially and the approaching wide-scale roll-out of 5G, the number of cell sites required and the corresponding need for access to sites is likely to increase substantially. However, with the risk of market rents falling as the industry applies the “no scheme” valuation criteria in the new Code and landlords often bearing the increasing costs of facilitating safe access to sites, many landlords are questioning whether they wish to continue providing cell sites to operators. Indications are that the telecoms market has “stagnated” as a result and, unless the relationship between operators and landowners improves, there is a real risk that the government’s ambition of having a world-class digital infrastructure in the UK will not be realised.
Part of the solution must lie with the provision to all those accessing sites of landowner access procedures, including details of requirements for managing location-specific risks, and meaningful sanctions being imposed on those who routinely fail to heed these.
Landowners recognise the important role that they and their sites play in developing a connected world but it will take “two to tango”. Is it time for landowners and operators to come together to negotiate an agreed way forward rather than relying on the government to try to do so?
This article was written by Emma Humphreys, Clare Fleming and Allison Mullen (Managing Director at Telemaster Limited). For more information please contact Emma on emma.humphreys@crsblaw.com or +44 (0)20 7203 5326.
This article was first published in Estates Gazette on 13 December 2018.
Our thinking
Jonathan Steele
Charles Russell Speechlys advises the DiscoverIE Group on its acquisition of the CDT Group
The CDT Group, will be integrated with discoverIE's Contour business cluster within the Sensing & Connectivity division.
Naomi Nettleton
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Topland Group on new joint venture and £50m acquisition and financing of Allen House
Charles Russell Speechlys completes third major transaction with Topland Group this year
Reem Al Mahroos
Source of Funds: New Reporting Requirements for Real Estate Transactions in the UAE
Piers Master
Bloomberg quotes Piers Master on the Zara family office
“Clients are increasingly mindful of the need to not to have all their eggs in one basket”
Steven Carey
Steven Carey and Carolyn Davies write for Construction News on a recent cladding court ruling
Cladding court ruling provides post-Grenfell liability pointers
Simon Green
Simon Green and Reem Al Mahroos write for Real Estate Asia on the trend of 'revenge tourism'
Revenge tourism is the new direction of travel for Asia...
Richard Flenley
Building Safety Fund has re-opened for applications
Clare Davis
Clare Davis writes for Personnel Today on hot weather and employment law
Hot summers, hot desks – employment law advice on working through heatwaves
Hannah Turner
Q&A: Tackling technicalities and typos
Our experts answer a landlord’s query about the validity of a section 21 notice
Hope Barton
Q&A: The qualifying criteria explained
What do landlords need to prove to satisfy ground (g) of section 30(1) of the 1954 Act for the purposes of a new tenancy?
Michael Lingens
Charles Russell Speechlys has advised the owners of The Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health (CRGH) on its sale to FutureLife
CRGH is the largest private fertility clinic in the London IVF market.
Naomi Heathcote
Green leases crucial to achieving net zero in the built environment
‘Net zero’ requires emissions to be reduced as far as possible, and for the remaining (or ‘residual’) emissions to be removed or captured.
Faye Cunningham
Closing the loophole or cumbersome rules? Beneficial owners of non-UK companies acquiring property within the UK to reveal their true identities
Samuel Lear
Samuel Lear answers the EG Legal Q&A on code rights
Q&A: Code rights queries answered
Claire Fallows
Politics, planning & life sciences clusters
Charlotte Duly
Retail Bulletin quotes Charlotte Duly on the House of Zana trademark row with Zara
"In this battle of David and Goliath, the little guy has come out on top."
David Coates
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Puma Private Equity on its investment into MUSO
We have advised long-term client Puma Private Equity on its investment into MUSO TNT Limited.
Helen Coward
FT Ignites Europe quotes Helen Coward on portfolio manager bonuses
"HMRC has had asset managers in their spotlight for some time now"
Emma Preece
Success for landlords as Court of Appeal dismiss cinema operators' appeal on COVID-19 arrears
Mark Howard
IT Pro quotes Mark Howard on investment in UK tech start-ups
"The UK has the strongest venture and growth capital funding ecosystem in Europe.”