Telecoms Case Alert – What Constitutes Redevelopment?

Vodafone v Icon: Key implications for landowners seeking to reclaim telecoms sites

The recent case of Vodafone v Icon has significant implications for landowners and site providers seeking to reclaim possession of telecoms sites for redevelopment. The recent Upper Tribunal’s decision, which favoured Vodafone, clarifies key considerations around redevelopment intentions, neighbouring land, and timeframes for commencing works. This ruling highlights crucial lessons for landowners when dealing with electronic communications code agreements.

Background – The Vodafone site dispute

Vodafone occupied a telecoms mast site at Stepps Hill Farm in Kent under a telecoms code agreement. Upon the agreement’s expiry, Vodafone sought a renewal, but the site owner, Icon, opposed it, arguing that it intended to carry out its own telecommunications redevelopment on neighbouring land. Icon’s proposed scheme involved decommissioning masts on three neighbouring sites (Vodafone, Orange, and MBNL), constructing a new mast on the Orange site, and removing the Vodafone and MBNL masts from their respective neighbouring sites . However, much of the work on the Orange site had already been completed before the dispute.

Icon sought termination of Vodafone’s agreement on three grounds:

• Vodafone had breached alienation provisions by allowing Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited to occupy the site.
• Icon’s redevelopment plan could not be reasonably carried out unless Vodafone vacated.
• The public benefit test under paragraph 21 of the Code was not met.

The Tribunal rejected all three arguments, allowing Vodafone to remain. This ruling is a blow to landowners who seek to rely upon redevelopment as a ground for termination, but the facts in this case were unusual and specific to site providers developing telecoms infrastructure.

The Tribunal however provided some valuable insights on what constitutes redevelopment, how neighbouring land is considered, and the importance of timing of a redevelopment.

Key lessons for landowners

What constitutes redevelopment?

• A planning permission that requires removal of an existing structure (here an existing mast) does not automatically mean the works are part of the redevelopment.
• Demolition alone is not redevelopment—it should involve constructing something new in its place.
• Works already completed cannot be relied upon, as that is not an intention to redevelop in the future (as it has already occurred).

Understanding neighbouring land

• “Neighbouring land” extends beyond immediately adjacent property or land, but proximity is key
• The definition of proximity is a question of fact, and requiring a detailed assessment of the land in question.

Timing considerations

• Landowners must demonstrate a genuine and imminent intention to redevelop.
• The Code implies that redevelopment should commence within a reasonable time after the code agreement ends.

Practical tips for landowners and developers

In light of the above, landowners and developers when considering whether it can rely upon redevelopment to seek removal of a telecoms mast should remember the following:

• Ensure redevelopment plans are fully developed, covering both the telecoms site and any adjacent land.
• Have a clear, demonstrable programme for the redevelopment to prove intent.
• Consider timing carefully—termination of a code agreement must align with realistic construction schedules.

Final thoughts

This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for landowners looking to reclaim telecoms sites. Without a well-defined, imminent redevelopment plan, seeking a termination relying upon the ground of redevelopment may not succeed. If you are considering a telecoms redevelopment, seek early legal advice to ensure your strategy aligns with the code’s requirements.