The government is planning to hand telecoms giants new powers to rewrite thousands of mobile mast rental agreements — a move that landowners warn could slash incomes and deepen rural tensions.
Under proposals in the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (PSTI) Act, telecoms providers could be granted powers to revisit and revise lease agreements for mobile phone masts agreed before 2017.
These agreements are typically renewed on the same terms, including how rent is calculated.
If enacted, the reforms would build upon controversial changes made to the Electronic Communications Code in 2017, which replaced market-based rents with a "no-scheme" valuation model.
That shift has already slashed some mast rents by as much as 90%, sparking a surge in legal disputes and weakening the relationship between landowners and operators — particularly in rural and hard-to-reach communities.
Industry estimates suggest the PSTI Act could apply to more than 15,000 existing telecoms agreements across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, effectively expanding the reach of the 2017 reforms.
In response to the government’s current technical consultation, organisations — including the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), British Property Federation and AP Wireless — have launched a survey aimed at gathering evidence for a fairer policy.
Farmers and landowners are being urged to share their views and experiences by the closing date of 30 June. All responses will remain anonymous.
The NFU, which has been working closely with other organisations on the issue, has sent several joint letters to key government officials and ministers.
The correspondence warns that the 2017 legislation has disrupted a previously functioning market and is hampering the pace of digital connectivity rollout in the countryside.
The letters call on ministers to halt the implementation of any further adverse regulation and to conduct a comprehensive review of the impact of the 2017 reforms.
While the NFU fully supports improved digital infrastructure for rural areas, it insists that this must be achieved “on a consensual basis” and in a manner that is fair to all parties — including landowners who host vital infrastructure on their land.
