Written evidence from Mobile UK & Mobile Infrastructure Forum (BSR0169)

 

About Mobile UK

  1. Mobile UK is the trade association for the UK's Mobile Network Operators (MNO) – BT/EE, Virgin Media O2, and VodafoneThree. Our goal is to realise the power of mobile to improve the lives of our customers and the prosperity of the UK.

 

  1. As mobile increasingly becomes the device of choice for running daily life both at home and at work, customers want improved coverage and greater capacity. Mobile UK's role is to identify the barriers to progress and work with all relevant parties to bring about change, be they Government, regulators, industry, consumers, or citizens more generally.

About Mobile Infrastructure Forum

  1. The Mobile Infrastructure Forum is comprised of four participant organisations that operate large-scale portfolios of shared macro mobile infrastructure throughout the UK.

 

  1. The participants of the Mobile Infrastructure Forum are Cellnex, Cornerstone, Mobile Broadband Network Limited and Wireless Infrastructure Group.

 

Introduction

 

  1. Mobile UK and MIF welcome the House of Lords Inquiry, because the new framework, established under the Building Safety Act 2022, does not appear to be working as either the Building Safety Regulator or industry would wish. The Act has had a significant impact on the telecommunications sector.

 

  1. We recognise that Health and Safety legislation is important to all stakeholders, and our response should be viewed in this context. Our sector takes its responsibilities seriously, and we and the BSR continue to work constructively together to improve the current position.

 

  1. Although the whole telecommunications industry is impacted by the new regulations, our response focuses on mobile infrastructure, where the issues are slightly different from the rollout of fibre. Mobile infrastructure is often deployed on the rooftops of tall buildings, as they offer a highly suitable vantage point from which to transmit a signal.

 

  1. The industry estimates that our equipment is presently installed on approximately 2,000 High Risk Buildings, taking together the portfolios of the mobile operators and the wholesale wireless infrastructure providers (‘WIPs’).

 

  1. Our experience is that the new regulatory framework has led to a material slowdown in both the upgrade of telecommunications infrastructure to 5G and the replacement of sites (where it has not been physically possible to upgrade, or sites which have been subject to a ‘notice to quit’ [NTQ]. This is mostly because the impact on our sector was not considered during the legislative process (no mention in the impact assessment, for example), and so the BSR has not been resourced to deal with the volume of applications coming from our sector.

 

  1.                     As an additional point, NTQs are a particularly thorny problem. Under law, operators receive 18 months notice to quit a site which the landowner intends to redevelop. This is a very short period in which to find, negotiate, acquire planning and build a new site. If the HRB process is not working properly, there is a significant risk that coverage will be lost in these locations, which customers find very disruptive.

 

  1.                     Slowing down network rollout is completely contrary to Government policy; mobile infrastructure supports 117 million connections in the UK (90 million people, 27 million ‘things’, such as smart meters or connected cars). It is considered critical national infrastructure and a core enabling technology to underpin all that the Government hopes to achieve in terms of economic growth and digital inclusion.

 

  1.                    It took a while for the seriousness of the problem to emerge, as industry did not realise that applications were not being processed until several of the BSR’s 12 week target times had expired and we were being asked to grant the regulator extensions.

 

  1.                    Our response is therefore focused on two key issues:

 

-          In the short term: How can the Building Safety Regulator be resourced to process the certification of high volume/low impact works, such as telecommunications, so that the 12 week target response time can be met, and how regulatory requirements can be made clearer to help both industry and the BSR.

 

-          In the medium term: The Government must review the legislation and the compliance processes, to ensure that it is fit for purpose and considers the perspectives of the telecommunications, and other sectors, whose works are mostly made up of high volume/low impact.

 

  1.                    Our response first considers the latter issue first.

Background

  1.                     Dame Judith Hackitt published the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety in 2018, having stated in the interim report that the regulatory system covering high-rise and complex buildings was not fit for purpose.

 

  1.                     Over the 121 pages of the interim report and the 159 pages of the final report, there was no mention of telecommunications infrastructure. Of the 87 organisations asked to take part in the Review’s working groups, none had a remit or expertise covering telecommunications infrastructure. The Review was viewed almost entirely through the lens of the construction industry.

 

  1.                    The 84 page Impact Assessment that was published alongside the Building Safety Bill in 2019 made no mention of telecommunications infrastructure.

 

  1.                    From a telecommunications industry perspective, therefore, it appears that the Building Safety Regulation 2022 was enacted without any consultation with or any thought for the impact on our sector.

 

  1.                    This has meant that the Building Safety Regulator (‘BSR’) was not expecting, or in any way set up to process applications coming from the telecommunications sector.

 

  1.                    Mobile UK/MIF’s evidence is focusing on the impact that has been felt by the mobile telecommunications sector, whose main providers are in the process of updating their transmitter sites to the fifth generation of mobile technology (so called ‘5G’), and are being held back in this effort because of delays in the approvals for high risk buildings (‘HRBs’).

 

  1.                     Mobile UK/MIF wrote to the Regulator and Minister Norris in May 2025, setting out the state of play as it stood at that time: the mobile industry had made 66 applications and had received 7 responses. Of the 59 where no response had yet been received, 9 had been in the system for over 6 months. Since the May letter, there has been much improved engagement with BSR, as we start to become more acquainted with what is required. As a result, approximately half of applications have been rejected or withdrawn, on the grounds of insufficient or the wrong information being provided to the BSR. 21 still await a response. This is a learning experience for both regulator and industry. While we are encouraged by the feedback being given to operators, we remain very nervous and concerned about the BSR’s capacity for processing a high volume of applications.

 

  1.                     Delays in the issuance of approvals for Building Works on HRBs will significantly impair operators’ ability to upgrade mobile networks, or, more seriously, to replace coverage which gets taken out of service when landowners have issued a ‘notice to quit’, in advance of buildings being redeveloped.

 

  1.                     The industry estimates there are approximately 2,000 mobile transmitter sites on High Risk Buildings, and that between 400 and 500 will need to be upgraded (or new sites found) in the next 12 months. In addition, the replacement of NTQ sites will add to the BSR workload.

 

  1.                     Some of this upgrade work is relatively minor (e.g. the addition of 5G antennas to an existing site) and so there has been some difficulty in understanding whether the works will have a material alteration of the HRB, and, as such, constitute Building works (of which more below).

 

  1.                     At the current run rate, and based on the current understanding of the law, the projected volume of work threatens to overwhelm the Building Safety Regulator.

 

  1.                     In the medium term, it would also be worth considering whether a ‘competent persons scheme’[1] could alleviate the workload of the BSR, where appropriate.

 

Recommendation

 

  1.                     Given the 2022 Building Safety Regulations were introduced without any consultation with or consideration of the mobile telecommunications sector, there are grounds for recommending that the Government reconsider the legislation and, if appropriate, amend it.

 

Improving the current position

 

  1.                    Mobile UK/MIF recognises that amending legislation takes time and that Health and Safety legislation is extremely important for all stakeholders.

 

  1.                    Our immediate priority, therefore, is to ensure the following:

 

a)      There is clarity on the law, in particular what type of activity in our sector constitutes ‘building works’ and thus needs certification by the BSR.

b)      There is certainty on what information the BSR needs (and what he does not need) in order to consider an application in a timely way. The documentation and content need to be standardised (in a template / checklist) to simplify the submission process.

c)      There is an effective system whereby the BSR can process the high volume of ‘small works’ which typically come from the mobile sector.

 

  1.                    Since our letter in May, better lines of communication have been established with the Building Safety Regulator, and we have started to make inroads on all of these aspects.

 

a)  Clarity on the law

 

  1.                    Mobile UK/MIF recognises that the 2022 Regulations did not change the definition of ‘building works’. However, under the previous arrangements, operators were able to consult with their local authority as to whether approval was required and any difficulties over interpretation and information provision could be dealt with locally.

 

  1.                    Now that certification of HRBs is being fed through the single gateway of the BSR, there is no scope for this local consultation and everything, understandably, must be done in a standardised way, as determined by the BSR.

 

  1.                      Mobile UK/MIF is therefore working on a document that gives industry guidance to operators, WIPs and their contractors as to what constitutes ‘building works’ in the context of the mobile telecommunications sector.

 

  1.                    The BSR, through its Technical Policy Team, has agreed to co-operate with industry on finalising this guidance. We expect this work to be completed by the end of 2025.

 

  1.                    If industry and the BSR cannot agree the content of this guidance, we will revert to MHCLG, as promoters of the legislation, to seek their input and guidance.

 

 

 

b)  Certainty on what information the BSR needs

 

  1.                    The way the BSR is set up means they are principally a portal/gateway, which is sub-contracting the actual assessments to third-party Registered Building Inspectors (‘RBI’).

 

  1.                    As a result, there have been examples of identical applications (in terms of information provided) being accepted by one RBI and rejected by others.

 

  1.                    This causes much confusion and frustration, particularly when it takes several weeks for the applicant to be told that a request for approval has been rejected on the grounds of the wrong or insufficient information being supplied.

 

  1.                     Individual operators are now in contact with the BSR and have received feedback on their applications, with a view to submitting them in a way that complies with the wishes of the BSR. It has been agreed that all our applications will be tagged ‘telecoms’ to ease triage within BSR.

 

  1.                     Mobile UK/MIF are also developing a checklist and ‘gold standard’ application. This will be agreed with the BSR in due course.

 

c)    An effective process

 

  1.                     It is our understanding that there is a very limited number of RBIs within the Health and Safety ecosystem, and that this is a significant risk factor for the timely issuance of building safety approvals.

 

  1.                     In the long term, there must be a strategy to build this capacity. In the near term, though, BSR must develop an effective system to deal with current/projected volumes.

 

  1.                     We further understand the BSR’s plan is to batch process most of the 5G upgrade work, much of which is not complex and can be standardised.

 

  1.                     To aid the process, individual operators are developing with the BSR a way of providing a forward look, setting out expected applications for, say, the next quarter, and an estimate for the next 12 months. Mobile UK will provide an anonymised industry aggregate picture. This process will enable the BSR to line up the third-party multi-disciplinary teams to process the work efficiently.

 

  1.                     Industry supports this approach. However, there remains significant risk that the approach will turn out to be unworkable, and/or that shortages of RBIs will continue to cause hold-ups in the approval process.

 

  1.                     Mobile UK/MIF will be monitoring the situation closely in the coming months.

 

Interaction with BSR - summary

 

  1.                     In summary, communication with the BSR has improved markedly. However, industry remains extremely nervous about whether the HSE ecosystem will be able to cope with the projected volume of work, in our sector and others.

 

  1.                     For example, in mid-June, at an industry meeting, the BSR committed to monthly industry co-ordination meetings. As yet, none have even been scheduled going forward, nor follow-up e-mails requesting such meetings even acknowledged. The BSR clearly remains under great pressure.

 

  1.                     As of today, 66 applications have been made. Since the May letter (referenced in para 20), there has been much improved engagement with BSR, as we start to become more acquainted with what is required. As a result, we have had many more response and applications have been rejected or withdrawn, on the grounds of insufficient or the wrong information being provided to the BSR. 21 still await a response (7 of which for over 6 months). This is a learning experience for both regulator and industry, and we recognise we need to get applications nearer to what the BSR requires.

 

  1.                     We still very uncertain, though, the BSR’s plan will work. We will, nonetheless, try to work closely with BSR to give it the best chance.

 

 

 

 

Committee’s questions

 

  1.                     Has the introduction of the BSR improved the safety of the buildings it is responsible for?

Unclear.

Mobile telecommunications have been in existence for 40 years. We estimate that transmitter sites are on about 2,000 HRBs, and several thousand other rooftop sites. To our knowledge, over this extensive time, mobile infrastructure has not proved a significant hazard to the buildings on which it is sited, and so there is no meaningful data on which to take a view on whether the new regulations have reduced any potential hazard significantly.

  1.                     Does the Building Safety Regulator’s regulatory framework strike the right balance between providing a holistic, outcomes-based view of safety and ensuring that developers and building owners understand what they are required to do?

No; as discussed in our evidence above, mobile telecommunications infrastructure was not specifically considered in the setting up of the BSR. Developing a better understanding by all relevant parties is very much work in progress.

  1.                     What impacts could the framework have on the delivery of the Government’s housing targets?

It is notable that the question focuses on housing targets and no other aspect of the Government’s industrial or infrastructure strategies.

Mobile UK/MIF’s considerable concern is that the Building Safety Regulations will have a significant adverse impact on the build-out and upgrade of mobile connectivity in our urban areas. In the next 12 months, the industry expects to make between 400 and 500 applications. This is mostly related to adding capacity to networks to cope with rising demand for data traffic. In some cases, though, applications will relate to replacing coverage lost as a result of the re-development of host sites. If site replacement is delayed by the BSR, this will result in customers losing existing connectivity – something that causes them much concern.

In the wider scheme of things, it also undermines the Government’s growth strategy, much of which is underpinned by improving digital connectivity, including mobile. 

  1.                     To what extent are delays in approvals for high-rise buildings down to the regulatory processes used by the BSR?

Process is undoubtedly a contributory factor and, as discussed in our response, we are working with the regulator to improve this. However, shortages of BSR and RBI resources are also a major risk factor.

  1.                     Are the BSR’s approval processes sufficiently clear and understandable to developers?

 

No; as discussed in our evidence above, mobile telecommunications infrastructure was not specifically considered in the setting up of the BSR. Developing a better understanding by all relevant parties is very much work in progress.

 

  1.                     Does the BSR have access to the skilled staff necessary to carry out multidisciplinary assessments of safety?

Our impression is that there are insufficient resources within the BSR and RBI community to process current demands. If the law is to remain as currently drafted, there will need to be a strategy for addressing this problem.

 

  1.                     Is the relationship between the BSR and building control authorities and inspectors working well?

Mobile UK/MIF has insufficient information on which to comment about this.

  1.                     How does the Building Safety Regulator’s work relate to the regulation of construction products?

No comments

  1.                     How does the Building Safety Regulator’s regulatory framework compare to how building safety is assured in other countries and jurisdictions?

 

No comments, but we note that Scotland, having observed what has occurred in England, will not be implementing legislation for our sector in the same way. We believe there are grounds for a complete rethink in England too.

10 September 2025

 

[1] A competent person scheme, whereby suitably qualified people can self-certify certain types of building work instead of getting building regulations approval from the BSR