New Government Changes to Boost 5G Mobile Cover in England

The Government has today begun a consultation on their proposed changes to Permitted Development (PD) rights for mobile infrastructure, which seeks to extend 5G and 4G (mobile broadband) coverage in rural areas of England via key changes (e.g. allowing taller masts of up to 30 metres and softening planning permission).

At present all the major Mobile Network Operators (MNO) – Three UK, Vodafone, O2 and EE (BT) – are in the process of deploying gigabit-capable 5G networks across the country. On top of that the £1bn industry led Shared Rural Network project (inc. £500m of public investment) is also working to extend geographic 4G coverage to 95% of the UK by the end of 2025, which may also aid future 5G coverage.

However, in order to ensure that all of this is successful the Government must first tackle some well-known problem areas, which have tended to make it difficult for operators to expand mobile coverage in a cost-effective way.

In simple terms, they need to make it easier for operators to improve existing masts, or to build taller masts and related infrastructure, which means expanding PD via changes to the Electronic Communications Code (ECC).

On top of that the Government (DCMS) will also produce a new Code of Practice (CoP) for mobile operators, which will inform them on how they and local authorities can “work together to build communications infrastructure the country needs“. It will also contain best practice for the siting of new infrastructure, particularly in protected areas, and “ensuring stakeholders are properly consulted.”

Proposed Reforms to PD Rights in England:

➤ Existing mobile masts to be strengthened without prior approval, so that they can be upgraded for 5G and shared between mobile operators. This would allow increases to the width of existing masts by up to either 50% or two metres (whichever is greatest), and in unprotected areas allow increases in height up to a maximum of 25 metres (previously 20 metres). Greater increases will also be permitted subject to approval by the local authority.

➤ New masts to be built up to five metres higher – meaning a maximum of 30 metres in unprotected areas and 25 metres in protected areas, subject to approval by the planning authority.

➤ Greater freedoms for slimline ‘monopole’ masts up to 15 metres in height, which are less visually intrusive than standard masts and used for 5G rollout, in unprotected areas. This could mean operators notifying local authorities of their intention to proceed without needing prior approval. This would align it with current rights that telecoms operators have for telegraph poles.

➤ Building-based masts to be placed nearer to highways to bring better mobile coverage to road networks, subject to prior approval, and in unprotected areas smaller building-based masts to be permitted without prior approval.

➤ Cabinets containing radio equipment to be deployed alongside masts without prior approval and to allow greater flexibility for installing cabinets in existing compounds – fenced-off sites containing masts and other communications equipment – to support new 5G networks.

At present 25 metres (height) is currently the legal limit in England for mobile masts / towers (it’s even lower in some parts of the UK, such as Wales), but outside urban areas operators would also like to build even taller masts because this is one way to significantly boost coverage, while keeping costs down. Around the EU a lot of countries have a 50m limit, while 25m also seems increasingly redundant in today’s era of towering wind turbines.

Sadly, the Government have not opted to go as high as 50 metres, which will be seen as a disappointment by some. Nevertheless, going up to 30m is still going to deliver a boost, even if that boost is much more modest. According to Ofcom (here), increasing a mast’s height from 15m to 20m can boost the coverage it provides by 10%, while going from 20m to 25m can increase that by a further 19% and so forth.

Now, before the usual mobile health fears start, it’s worth pointing out that taller masts actually put the radio equipment even further away from people on the ground (safer). Likewise, having taller masts means that you need fewer small masts, which is another bonus on this front and may soften the cosmetic impact in some areas. But it’s currently unclear how many smaller masts may be removed with a boost to 30m.

Oliver Dowden MP, UK Digital Secretary, said:

“We want to level up the country and end the plague of patchy and poor mobile signals in rural communities.

Today we are setting out plans to make it easier for mobile firms to transform connectivity in the countryside and propel villages and towns out of the digital dark ages – providing a welcome boost for millions of families, businesses and visitors.

These practical changes strike a careful balance between removing unnecessary barriers holding back better coverage, while making sure we protect our precious landscape.”

Hamish MacLeod, Director of Mobile UK, said:

“We welcome the proposals set out in this consultation which will provide better certainty and flexibility to technological changes required to build world-class mobile networks. We urge the Government that to assist mobile companies to meet its ambitious targets for deployment, it brings about legislative change as quickly as possible.”

The rule changes will of course also make it more difficult for people to object to the deployment of new masts and related upgrade work to existing masts, in certain circumstances. Local councils will thus have a tricky time of trying to balance these changes with pressure from their constituents. Not everybody likes having new telecoms infrastructure built near their property and objections to planning applications can be quite common.

The new CoP proposed above is unlikely to resolve all of those disputes and indeed we have doubts about the ability of these changes to, as the government pledges, “eliminate mobile signal blindspots in rural areas and on roads.” Inevitably there will always be some areas where mobile signals will struggle to reach, whether due to terrain topography or other physical obstructions (buildings, forests etc.).

All of this might also help to support the Government’s new £5bn Project Gigabit commitment to rollout gigabit-capable broadband across the final 20% of the hardest to reach premises (mostly rural) by the end of 2025, since some of that same mobile infrastructure may play a part – either directly or indirectly – in supporting such connectivity.

The consultation on these changes will run for eight weeks and closes on 14th June 2021. On top of that the Government have today also published a final report from the Telecoms Diversification Taskforce (TDT), which broadly sets out how the Government should seek to support new suppliers into the mobile market (e.g. fostering OpenRAN) in order to replace the loss of Huawei (context here and here).

TDT Recommendations

➤ Working through telecoms standards-setting bodies to encourage best practice in security and open networks;

➤ Creating the right environment for diversification through policy interventions – for example, setting out a timetable for the winding down of 2G and 3G networks to support the entry of new vendors into the UK market;

➤ Identifying interventions and investment to accelerate the development and adoption of Open Radio Access Network technology, including setting up a fund for developing new products and ensuring testing facilities such as the UK Telecoms Lab and SONIC meet industry needs;

➤ Identifying opportunities to invest in long-term research and innovation to build UK capability for current and future generations of telecoms technology.

The point about setting a timetable for withdrawal of 2G and 3G networks is going to be very tricky. In fact, it’s probably easier to do this for a standard like 3G than it will be for an established and still widely used one like the older 2G service, which has found plenty of low powered niches. For example, the original SMETS 1 energy smart meters all made use of 2G signals to send their readings.

Otherwise, the final report into this £250 million strategy is fairly generalised and doesn’t add much that we didn’t already know, which means that we’ll have to wait until the Government issues its formal response in order to find out what practical changes will result from those proposals.

Changes to PD Rights – Consultation
https://www.gov.uk/../changes-to-permitted-development-rights-for-electronic-communications-infrastructure-technical-consultation

Telecoms Diversification Taskforce – Final Report
https://www.gov.uk/../telecoms-diversification-taskforce-findings-and-report