What the latest telecoms cases mean for landowners

2026 has already seen a number of telecoms cases considering rental amounts, compensation and the terms to be included in telecoms leases, with several producing positive outcomes for landowners.

It is well known that operators have significant powers to acquire the rights they need to install equipment under the Electronic Communications Code (the Telecoms Code). Even so, these recent decisions show there are still important protections for landowners and that specialist advice can make a real difference.

1. Not all rural telecoms sites should attract low rents

In CTIL v AP Wireless (May 2026), the court determined the rent for a telecoms site at Redmarsh Industrial Estate near Blackpool at £4,500, around 40% higher than the rent set in a prior case looking at rent for greenfield sites – the New Zealand Farm case.

The court agreed with the landowner that although the site was in a rural location, it was not a rural unexceptional greenfield site (“RUGS”). It accepted that RUGS is not simply a site with no alternative use value, but one that is rural, agricultural or isolated and lacking any commercial environment.

The court found that the starting point for valuation should instead be industrial comparables, adjusted to reflect restrictive covenant constraints, benefits and burdens, and any site-specific features.

What this means: If your site is in a rural location but close to commercial activity or major infrastructure, it may justify a higher rent than might previously have been expected.

2. The Tribunal continues to favour operators on key lease terms

In On Tower (UK) Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited and Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited (April 2026), the Tribunal considered the terms of a new telecoms agreement at Queens Oak Farm.

The site provider sought a redevelopment break that could be exercised from the start of the agreement, while the operator argued it should only become exercisable after the fifth anniversary. The Tribunal agreed with the operator, finding that a minimum uninterrupted period was needed to allow it to operate effectively.

The Tribunal also rejected the landowner’s proposed restriction preventing replacement of the mast or increases in its height. It found that network upgrades may be necessary and that concerns about future commercial opportunities were speculative.

What this means: Landowners should negotiate terms that protect their commercial interests, but the Tribunal is unlikely to support restrictions that prevent operators from maintaining or upgrading their networks.

3. Compensation claims still need clear evidence

In Cornerstone v Adeline Properties (May 2026), the Tribunal considered whether a landowner should receive additional compensation for entering into a Multi-Skilled Visit (MSV) Agreement.

MSV agreements are typically short-term licences allowing operators to carry out surveys and inspections to assess whether a site is suitable for telecoms apparatus. They are not Code agreements or leases and come to an end automatically when the agreed term expires.

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the landowner’s evidence of potential loss and confirmed that no compensation was payable for entering into the MSV agreement. It did, however, allow £500 to cover administrative work and reviewing plans.

What this means: If you are asked to enter into an MSV agreement, do not assume you will be entitled to compensation beyond your reasonable professional and administrative costs. Taking advice at an early stage can help ensure the agreement is properly documented, your professional fees are covered and the risk of unnecessary disputes is reduced.

What does this mean for landowners?

These decisions provide useful guidance for landowners negotiating with telecoms operators. They show that rental valuations depend on the characteristics of the site, that operators continue to benefit from strong protections under the Code, and that claims for compensation need to be backed by clear evidence.

If you are negotiating a new telecoms agreement, dealing with a request for access or reviewing an existing arrangement, seeking legal and surveying advice at an early stage can help you secure the best outcome.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to address the circumstances of any individual or entity, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for specific advice from a qualified solicitor. The information reflects the legal position as at the date specified and may be subject to change. If you require advice on a specific matter, please contact us directly.