Written evidence submitted by APWireless (CISDC0038)
Introduction
AP Wireless is one of the largest independent investors and hosts of mobile infrastructure in the United Kingdom and has been active in Scotland for more than a decade. We own and manage telecoms interests at over 2,000 sites UK-wide, including a substantial portfolio of rural and island locations in Scotland. We work directly with farmers, estates, councils, housing providers, community trusts, churches, and private landowners who host the physical infrastructure required for 4G and 5G connectivity.
We are submitting evidence to the Committee because the experience of these site providers gives us a unique, ground-level perspective on the practical barriers to improving mobile coverage in rural Scotland. The Electronic Communications Code applies across the whole UK, but its real-world impact is often felt most sharply in rural and hard-to-reach areas. Our evidence draws on current Scottish casework, site-level data, and direct engagement with landlords, surveyors, engineers and operators.
We hope this submission assists the Committee in understanding how the existing legal and commercial framework affects Scotland’s ability to deliver reliable digital connectivity, and why reform of deployment practices and engagement culture will be essential if rural communities are to benefit fully from next-generation mobile services.
Questions:
○ How effective has the rollout of Project Gigabit been in Scotland?
○ To what extent are UK Government initiatives coordinated with the Scottish Government’s R100 programme?
○ What lessons can be learned from previous broadband rollout schemes, such as superfast broadband?
AP Wireless has not submitted evidence on this issue as it falls outside our operational expertise.
2. What is the future outlook for 5G deployment in rural Scotland, and what lessons can be taken from the 4G rollout?
The future outlook for 5G in rural Scotland will be shaped primarily by the operation of the Electronic Communications Code (“the Code”), which since 2017 has governed telecoms deployment across the whole of the United Kingdom. Although land law differs between Scotland and the rest of the UK, the Code applies uniformly. It has been amended repeatedly since 2017, and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland has now built up a substantial body of case law, giving operators confidence about how the Tribunal will approach valuation and disputed agreements. The Government has recently proceeded by publishing a Statutory Instrument commencing Sections 61 to 64 of the 2022 Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act (PSTI Act) with a coming into force date of 7 April 2026. These regulations will expand the ECC’s “no-scheme” valuation model applying it to lease renewals governed by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA) and the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order (BTO). This Statutory Instrument was not laid before parliament and therefore, will not be subject to scrutiny to adequately measure the impacts of this secondary piece of legislation.
Rural Scotland continues to experience slower deployment than urban areas. Since the Code applies nationwide, these disparities cannot reasonably be attributed to Scottish landowners, planning authorities or advisers. Based on AP Wireless’s experience managing thousands of sites across the UK, including Scotland, the principal constraints on rural rollout come from the following enduring structural factors within the industry rather than from landowner resistance:
Cost
A major structural barrier is the breakdown in commercial relationships caused by the 2017 shift to “no-scheme” valuation under the Code.
The aim of the 2017 reforms was to reduce operator costs; however, in practice, this has resulted in rent cuts of up to 90% in some instances for hosting mobile infrastructure, turning previously cooperative arrangements into increasingly adversarial ones. Landowners who once worked proactively to secure and maintain sites now face sharply reduced income and more onerous terms, making them understandably less willing to host mobile infrastructure.
This loss of goodwill has been accompanied by a marked increase in disputes and delays, as operators and site providers become entangled in prolonged negotiations or tribunal proceedings, rather than focusing on network improvements.
The consequence is fewer viable locations, slower agreement of replacement sites, and reduced flexibility at exactly the moment when 5G requires more equipment, more space, and more collaboration.
Capacity
Delays in rural deployment are frequently linked to transmission constraints rather than site negotiations. Backhaul solutions in rural Scotland often require complex design work, new fibre routes or microwave relays, all of which take time and rely on specialist engineering teams who are already stretched.
Design
During the 4G rollout, design teams often lacked capacity, leading to flawed or unworkable proposals that required redesign. These bottlenecks remain. For 5G upgrades on shared structures, design complexity increases significantly, and errors or omissions in drawings continue to cause avoidable delay.
Deterioration of operator–landowner engagement
The Code has altered industry culture and behaviour. Operators are increasingly willing to select suboptimal or inappropriate sites and rely on statutory powers when negotiations do not progress quickly. Operators now feel that they do not have to concede, even with regard to reasonable requests from the landlords, because they can obtain the rights they are demanding through tribunal means. Examples from recent Scottish casework include access routes proposed through ambulance turning areas or compound locations within operational salt-storage yards. These proposals then proceed directly to planning with minimal engagement, triggering community opposition and avoidable delay.
Example: Firoka King’s Cross Limited (English) First Tier Tribunal decision
A recent First-tier Tribunal decision upheld a landlord’s refusal to grant Cornerstone an imposed Code agreement, citing rooftop redevelopment for air-conditioning. While the outcome is notable, the more revealing aspect is Cornerstone’s own evidence about current market dynamics between operators and landlords.
Cornerstone claims (para. 17) that landlords are increasingly unwilling to host Electronic Communications Apparatus (ECA), often citing redevelopment as a reason, something it says is becoming more common, particularly once lawyers are involved. However, the underlying reasons for landlord reluctance are not explored.
In para. 16, Cornerstone argues that operators are the technical experts and therefore landlords should not need to be involved in design or installation. It suggests landlords should modify their own redevelopment plans to accommodate operator equipment; that operator access protocols should override building-specific rules; and that operators’ technical processes should take priority because landlords lack expertise.
Many landlords and advisers report growing friction, driven by what they perceive as a uniform, transactional, and non-collaborative operator approach. Operators appear unwilling to compromise when they believe they can secure favourable terms via tribunal, even where reasonable negotiated terms could avoid disputes. Two structural issues worsen the situation: (1) landlords effectively have no choice of infrastructure provider, and established providers resist competition; (2) landlords have little recourse to complain about operator conduct.
Lessons for 5G from the 4G era
The fundamental lesson is that deployment delays in rural areas are rarely caused by landowners. They stem from internal operator constraints and an over-reliance on statutory powers that weaken collaboration. Unless operators reinstate early engagement, invest in engineering capacity, and avoid treating the Code as a default substitute for negotiation, 5G rollout risks repeating the same structural failures seen under 4G.
Neutral host model
The future outlook for 5G deployment in rural Scotland will also depend on moving away from the commercially driven, fragmented approach that slowed 4G rollout and toward a mandated neutral-host model, where a single shared tower serves several operators. This would reduce costs, avoid duplication, and provide a more reliable pathway to universal coverage in areas that remain uneconomic for individual MNO build-outs. A key lesson from the 4G experience is that relying on voluntary commercial deployment leaves many rural communities behind, so creating a mechanism for communities to petition OFCOM, triggering an assessment and, where justified, a neutral-host procurement process would help ensure that 5G does not repeat 4G’s patchy and uneven progress.
3. What impact has the Electronic Communications Code had on mast hosting agreements and mobile infrastructure deployment in Scotland?
The Code now functions, in effect, as a compulsory-purchase-style regime on a leasehold basis. While reform of the pre-2017 system was necessary, the present framework went beyond the recommendations of the Law Commission and has materially altered landlord–operator dynamics in Scotland.
Rent reductions following the 2017 reforms have been steep, with many Scottish landlords reporting cuts of 80 to 90 per cent. Although valuations are determined case by case by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, the same statutory assumptions apply across the UK. This has led to widespread concern about fairness and sustainability.
There have been numerous examples of this happening in Scotland and across the UK more widely including:
● RCCG King of Glory Church, Edinburgh (2021): The Church saw its rent reduced by 96%. The pastor later said the process left him feeling bullied and intimidated, reflecting how strained these negotiations have become under the current regime.
● Queens Park Govanhill Parish Church, Glasgow (ongoing): The Church was asked to accept a drop in rent from around £15,000 to £2,000. When no agreement could be reached, the operator escalated the matter to the Tribunal, seeking a revised rent of £5,000 and the repayment of sums already paid above that level.
Aggressive negotiation tactics
Initial correspondence regularly contains threats of referral to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland if proposals for new sites, upgrades or renewals are not accepted. This is true even where the upgrade rights do not clearly fall within the scope of the post-2017 Code. In addition, there is a no complaints procedure for landlords to use, meaning that these tactics are often repeated with very little accountability.
Poor workmanship and inadequate oversight
Common issues include insufficient fire-stopping in high-rise buildings, failure to comply with landlord safety protocols, and structural calculations that are incomplete or inaccurate. Historically, landlords could recover their professional costs under commercial agreements. Under the Code, structural oversight is practically unfunded, and yet Tribunal judgments assume that operators’ professionals can be relied upon.
Operational disruption
Hotels, residential landlords and public-sector bodies frequently receive dozens or hundreds of access emails for a single visit, without compensation for disruption, despite the fact that landlords should be compensated for their losses under the Code. Contractors often fail to attend, causing loss of rooms, aborted maintenance and unnecessary operational cost.
Disproportionate operator demands
Landlords have been asked to agree to non-interference clauses covering their entire estates in exchange for modest rent at a single compound. In another case, following the death of a landlord, a grieving widow was served a statutory notice addressed to her late husband. Such examples demonstrate a cultural issue rather than isolated incidents.
Valuation and inflexibility of agreements
Once imposed, Code agreements are extremely difficult to amend. While the Tribunal in Scotland has shown some willingness to recalibrate earlier undervalued rural decisions, landlords remain in a structurally weak position. Few are willing to initiate renewal proceedings given the cost, complexity and imbalance of power.
Overall, reliance on the Code has become the norm, not the exception. Landlords sign agreements not because they support operator behaviour, but because the Tribunal route is too risky, expensive and protracted. The industry is now working on compulsion rather than collaboration.
We are concerned that the government is pressing ahead with implementing sections 61-64 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 without laying it before Parliament, and therefore not subject to Parliamentary procedure. As a result, there is a lack of scrutiny or opportunity for evidence gathering to adequately measure the impacts of these legislative changes.
4. What are the implications of landowner resistance or withdrawal from hosting mobile infrastructure in Scotland?
The policy assumption that operators will always secure access to sites through the Code does not reflect the practical reality in rural Scotland. Despite the removal of masts being exceptionally hard, landlords are still prepared to take that step as opposed to dealing with a counterparty that they deem to be overly aggressive and demanding. Operators also using the Code as the norm are also delaying matters because their route one now relies upon litigation rather than collaboration. Long term this means that the landlord is adverse to future requests and cooperation. Rollout has always relied upon the cooperation of landlords but that has now stopped.
Examples include:
● councils losing critical income used to support local services
● hotels unable to maintain rooftop systems because operators argue essential works do not meet the redevelopment test
● farms experiencing repeated operational disruption from contractors without any ability to refuse entry
These examples illustrate how the current framework undermines goodwill at a time when rural rollout relies on stable partnerships.
A June 2025 survey of 559 UK mast hosts, including many in Scotland, found:
● more than one in three are considering withdrawing from hosting altogether
● nearly 70 per cent report operators using legal threats during renewals
● only 23 per cent are willing to renew leases under current Code conditions
Such levels of disengagement represent a structural risk to rural Scotland’s digital future.
The historical success of 4G in rural areas depended on goodwill, cooperation and trust. The statutory regime has weakened these foundations. Unless future policy supports collaborative rather than compulsory deployment, rural Scotland is likely to fall further behind the rest of the UK.
5. What are the knock-on impacts to transitioning to digital services for those in Scotland’s rural communities. This could include but is not limited to: the phase-out of Radio Teleswitch Services (RTS), the move away from analogue landlines and moving towards an online-only television service.
○ What support is there for affected households, and is it sufficient?
AP Wireless has not submitted evidence on this issue as it falls outside our operational expertise.
6. What role could satellite technologies, or other alternative solutions play in improving connectivity in Scotland’s remote areas?
AP Wireless has not submitted evidence on this issue as it falls outside our operational expertise.
7. What are the barriers to adoption of these technologies and how might they be overcome?
AP Wireless has not submitted evidence on this issue as it falls outside our operational expertise.
January 2026