Rural landowners have lost a significant source of income after a tribunal ruling confirmed they are not entitled to payments when mobile phone mast sites are shared between operators.
The decision tightens the scope of landowners’ rights under the Electronic Communications Code and is expected to affect farmers and rural estates across the UK.
The ruling stems from the Upper Tribunal’s decision in the Ewefields appeal, formally known as On Tower UK Ltd v AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd, which clarified how site-sharing rights operate under the Code.
Before 2018, landowners hosting mast sites typically received an annual rent, alongside an additional payment if the site was shared with another mobile network operator.
These arrangements reflected the commercial value of sharing, as operators charged competitors annual fees that could exceed £15,000, depending on the site’s location and characteristics.
A proportion of that income, known as a pay-away, usually flowed to the landowner, commonly around 30%, though in some cases it ranged between 10% and 50%.
Reforms to the Electronic Communications Code introduced in 2017 removed the explicit right to charge for site sharing, but uncertainty remained over how the provisions should be applied.
That uncertainty has now been resolved by the tribunal, which confirmed that site sharing forms part of an operator’s statutory rights under the Code and does not require additional payment to the landowner.
“The Ewefields tribunal decision confirms that site sharing forms part of the operator’s Code rights and does not attract additional consideration,” says Oliver Sinclair, specialist surveyor at Galbraith.
While the ruling supports wider policy aims around digital connectivity and limiting the number of new masts, its financial consequences for landowners are substantial.
“The practical effect is that landowners are receiving far less income from these sites,” Mr Sinclair says. “Sharing payments, which in many cases exceeded the annual rent, have now effectively fallen away in new agreements, even as sites accommodate increased levels of sharing activity.”
He says the commercial balance now sits firmly with mobile network operators.
“Operators remain able to derive significant commercial value from site sharing arrangements between themselves,” he says, “but a share of that value no longer flows to the landowner.”
The ruling adds to a series of legal decisions that have steadily reduced returns from telecoms infrastructure on rural land.
When Code agreements are renewed, annual rents for mast sites have fallen sharply, from around £7,000 to approximately £2,000 per site, even before the loss of sharing income is taken into account.
Combined with the limited ability for landowners to bring Code agreements to an end, the overall effect is that hosting telecoms infrastructure has become materially less attractive for many farmers and rural estates.
Mr Sinclair says landowners still have scope to protect their position with professional advice.
“With the right guidance, landowners can still secure agreements that respect their land, protect their operations, and maximise the value of their site,” he says.
Although the Ewefields appeal provides clarity on how sharing rights are treated under the Code, it is unlikely to bring an end to disputes between operators and landowners as negotiations continue under a more constrained framework.
