The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Ewefields marks another decisive moment in the evolution of the Electronic Communications Code. While the Code was intended to modernise digital infrastructure, its current interpretation is increasingly diverging from the expectations of many landowners who have hosted telecoms sites for decades.

The case centred on a number of rural mast sites owned by AP Wireless, where On Tower sought new Code agreements. A key issue was the scope of sharing rights, where network operators are obliged to share equipment to minimise environmental depletion. The First-tier Tribunal had sought to restrict sharing to equipment only, as set out in paragraph 17 of the Code.

On appeal, the Upper Tribunal fundamentally disagreed with this narrow approach. It held that the Code does not confine sharing to apparatus; rather, operators may share the wider site, including structures and lease rights, provided they can demonstrate a commercial need to do so.

Additional value

The judgment also addressed the statutory amendments of 2022, which introduced limited mandatory sharing rights. Some parties had argued that these amendments represented a cap on what tribunals could impose. The Upper Tribunal rejected that view, confirming that the amendments establish a minimum baseline of sharing rights but do not restrict the Tribunal’s discretion to grant broader rights under paragraph 20. This leaves operators able to pursue wide-ranging sharing rights that exceed the default statutory framework.

The Upper Tribunal did not hear evidence regarding the ownership, maintenance, and operation of the apparatus being installed, nor the income received by the mast operator from such sharing arrangements. It therefore did not consider the additional value that could be attributed to rights extending beyond those in paragraph 17 of the Code.

Because the installation of apparatus on existing electronic communications equipment falls outside the Code, it is not subject to paragraph 24’s restrictions on rent. The ability to share apparatus in this way—combined with the Ewefields ruling—provides mast operators with a highly valuable income stream, often amounting to £10,000–£20,000 a year, resulting in a considerable profit rent at the expense of the site provider.

Rapid telecoms rollout

In short, Ewefields strengthens operators’ negotiating positions and continues the trend of pro-infrastructure decisions. For landowners and advisers, it reaffirms the Tribunal’s view of the Code as a mechanism to support rapid, efficient telecoms rollout, even when that limits the financial and practical leverage of site providers. While Ewefields may stand as a clear statement on the approach to sharing rights under the  Code, it is unlikely to reduce the volume of disputes arising from it.

The decision does not eliminate the challenges landowners face, but it highlights the value of having a specialist team who understands the Code, the operators, and the negotiation landscape. Despite operators frequently citing the £1,750 rent determined in Ewefields as a new benchmark for unexceptional greenfield sites, this is not now an appropriate rent and we are aware of new Code agreements being reached at rents considerably in excess of this level.

Knowledge and experience

With the right guidance, landowners can still secure agreements that respect their land, protect their operations, and maximise the value of their site.

At Galbraith, our specialist telecoms team works exclusively in this field, combining deep knowledge of the Code with decades of experience advising landowners. We understand how operators approach negotiations, how the Tribunal is currently interpreting the legislation, and where genuine value can still be achieved. By drawing on this expertise, landowners can navigate an increasingly complex landscape with confidence and ensure their interests are properly represented throughout the process.