Consultation outcome

Draft regulations for Sections 61 to 64 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022: government response

Updated 15 December 2025

Introduction

This consultation^{[footnote 1]} sought views on draft secondary legislation (the “Draft Regulations”) related to Sections 61 – 64 (the “Renewals Provisions”) of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 (the “2022 Act”).

The consultation was technical in nature and sought views on the saving and transitional provisions in the Draft Regulations. The policy decision to make the changes contained in the Renewals Provisions was established by the 2022 Act and did not form part of the consultation. Views were also not sought on the aims of the saving and transitional provisions, which are outlined further below, but on whether the Draft Regulations would give effect to those aims.

The Renewals Provisions, when in force, will alter the financial terms on renewal of certain types of leases under Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“the 1954 Act”) in England and Wales and the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the 1996 Order”) in Northern Ireland whose primary purpose is to confer Electronic Communications Code (“Code”) rights on telecommunication operators relating to telecommunication infrastructure. They will do this by replacing the valuation frameworks that currently apply, with provisions that mirror those in the Code. Further information about the Renewals Provisions is set out in the original consultation.

The Draft Regulations include saving and transitional provisions which are intended to deliver a clear transition between the valuation frameworks for “Live Tenancies”^{[footnote 2]} and avoid the risk of landlords having to repay rents already received for periods before the Renewals Provisions come into force as a direct consequence of these changes (the “Backdating Issue”).

This response provides an overview of the responses received to the consultation on the Draft Regulations and sets out how the government intends to take forward the commencement of the Renewal Provisions.

Summary government response

The majority of respondents to the consultation agreed that the Draft Regulations were sufficiently clear (subject to some technical proposed drafting changes which have been taken into account) and will give effect to delivering a clear transition between the valuation frameworks.

Alongside the publication of this response, secondary legislation commencing Sections 61 to 64 of the 2022 Act has been made and registered in parliament on 15 December 2025 with a coming into force date of 7 April 2026. This date is intended to allow a reasonable lead in time before the new provisions take effect. It is also intended to support alignment with Section 65 of the 2022 Act, which will permit disputes affected by these changes to be dealt with by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in England and Wales, being brought into effect.

The government’s response to each of the sections outlined in the consultation and the matters raised in response to them are detailed below.

Overview of consultation responses

The consultation was published on GOV.UK and was open for 8 weeks from 8 May to 2 July 2025. Responses were accepted in writing, either electronically or by post.

There were 20 responses to the consultation. Not all respondents responded to every question. The table below provides a breakdown of responses by respondent type (Table 1).

Table 1: Consultation responses by type of respondent

Type of respondent	Number of responses
Telecoms Operators (Including trade associations)	11
Site Providers	6
Professional Body	1
Individual	2

Section 1 - Live Tenancies - assessment of rents

Questions about ensuring a clear transition between valuation frameworks

Question 1: Do you agree/disagree that Regulation 4 gives effect to the aim of providing a clear transition for Live Tenancies between the valuation frameworks when the Renewal Provisions come into force in England and Wales

There were 17 responses to this question. Of those, 11 respondents agreed that the Draft Regulations provided a clear transition, 5 did not agree and 1 respondent neither agreed nor disagreed.

Key points:

• The majority of respondents agreed that Regulation 4 gives effect to the aim of providing a clear transition for Live Tenancies between the valuation frameworks when the Renewal Provisions come into force in England and Wales, though some suggested minor drafting changes to improve clarity.
• Five respondents wanted greater clarity on the proposed coming into force date in order to assess whether Regulation 4 provides a clear transition.
• Two respondents suggested it was unclear how cases would be affected where parties have used section 29B of the 1954 Act to extend the deadline for issuing proceedings.

Question 2: Do you agree/disagree that Regulation 7 gives effect to the aim of providing a clear transition for Live Tenancies between the valuation frameworks when the Renewals Provisions come into force in Northern Ireland?

There were 13 responses to this question. Of those, 10 respondents agreed that the Draft Regulations provided a clear transition and 3 did not agree.

Key points:

• The majority of respondents agreed that Regulation 7 gives effect to the aim of providing a clear transition for Live Tenancies between the valuation frameworks when the Renewals Provisions come into force in Northern Ireland.
• Respondents that disagreed felt that a clearer timeline for implementation was required, because the consultation did not set out a proposed coming into force date.
• Two respondents who had raised the issue regarding section 29B and the extension of proceedings (see above) noted this would not be an issue in relation to the 1996 Order, which does not have an equivalent provision.

Coming into force date

The consultation did not ask for views on the coming into force date. However, in their responses – particularly to Questions 1 and 2 - stakeholders expressed views on this, which we took into account when we were considering when the regulations should be brought into force.

Three respondents called for the commencement of the regulations to be delayed by up to 12 – 18 months to allow for familiarisation, whereas 2 respondents felt they should be implemented as soon as possible to provide more certainty. Two respondents stated that if the coming into force and made date for the regulations were the same, there would effectively be no transition between the valuation models.

Government response to section 1

The majority of the respondents agreed that the Draft Regulations provide a clear transition for Live Tenancies between the valuation frameworks, subject to minor technical drafting changes which have been made for clarification.

On the point made about possible confusion where Section 29B is used to extend the time limits for issuing proceedings, we have made clear in the explanatory notes accompanying these regulations that the savings provision is unaffected by an agreement to extend time limits under Section 29B.

The government has made regulations that will bring the Renewals Provisions into force on 7 April 2026.

As noted above, 3 stakeholders asked for substantial lead in times (12 – 18 months) to allow for familiarisation with the commencement provisions. However, we consider that the coming into force date will provide a reasonable lead in period for stakeholders to familiarise themselves with the position and understand the impact on agreements they are party to. In addition, these regulations commence sections 61-64 of the 2022 Act which received Royal Assent in 2022. As such, stakeholders have already had a period to familiarise themselves with any impacts of sections 61-64. The regulations commence these provisions of the 2022 Act and deliver the intended transition to the “no network” valuation model.

Four respondents stated that in not providing a coming into force date in the consultation we had limited their ability to comment on the Draft Regulations. They also suggested that not having a gap between the date on which the regulations are made and the date on which they come into force would mean there would be no “transition” between the “market valuation” and “no network” models. We do not agree with these points. Respondents had the opportunity to, and some did, provide detailed comments on different coming into force dates, of which we took account. In addition, we consider that the Regulations clearly specify which cases are affected by the commencement of sections 61 – 64 and provide a transition to the “no network” valuation model.

However, we have concluded that, because of the practical impacts in relation to cases where negotiations are already underway, it is appropriate to have a lead in period between the date on which the regulations are made and the date on which they are brought into force to allow a period for adaptation.

It is intended that the date we have chosen would also provide alignment with the implementation of section 65, which will allow disputes on affected cases to be dealt with by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Section 65 implementation cannot be completed until changes to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 and the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Chambers) Order 2010^{[footnote 3]} have been made and it is our understanding that the earliest this can take place is April 2026.

While alignment with Section 65 is not essential, we recognise that the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is a specialist Tribunal with considerable experience of dealing with Code cases, including under the “no network” valuation model. There are therefore some benefits of aligning implementation of Sections 61 - 64 with Section 65 which, taken together with the benefits of a lead in period, have informed our choice of this as a commencement date. 

It should be noted that alignment is not guaranteed, but we will work closely with Ministry of Justice to deliver this. In the event that this is not secured, disputes under Sections 61 – 64 will still be able to be dealt with by the County Court.

Northern Ireland, where all disputes are dealt with by the County Court, is not affected by Section 65. However, a key aim of the Renewals Provisions is to secure greater consistency across the UK, and a common commencement date is therefore desirable.

Section 2 - interim and/or varied rents

Question 3: Do you agree/disagree that the Draft Regulations make clear that, where Regulation 4 applies, the calculation of interim rent is unaffected by the amendments made by the Renewals Provisions?

There were 17 responses to this question. Of those, 15 respondents agreed, 1 did not agree and 1 respondent neither agreed nor disagreed.

Key points:

• The majority of respondents agreed that the Draft Regulations make clear that, where Regulation 4 applies, the calculation of interim rent is unaffected by the amendments made by the Renewals Provisions
• Two respondents felt that clarification on the coming into force date is required to determine the impact of the regulations.
• Some respondents made the point that changes to the Code in 2017 (via the Digital Economy Act 2017) are already having an impact on interim rents This refers to arguments that the market value of rents for rights to install telecoms apparatus have also reduced as an indirect consequence of the 2017 Code reforms. In relation to renewals under the 1954 Act, respondents say new rents are being assessed at a lower rate and, consequently, site providers are being required to repay interim rents. This matter is outside the scope of this consultation and is discussed in the “Additional Commentary” section below.

Question 4: Do you agree/disagree that the Draft Regulations make clear that where Regulation 5 applies, the calculation of interim rent is unaffected by the amendments made by the Renewals Provisions for periods prior to the date on which they come into force?

There were 17 responses to this question. Of those, 14 respondents agreed, 2 did not agree and 1 respondent neither agreed nor disagreed.

Key points:

• The majority of respondents agreed that the Draft Regulations make clear that where Regulation 5 applies, the calculation of interim rent is unaffected by the amendments made by the Renewals Provisions for periods prior to the date on which they come into force.
• One respondent asked that jurisdiction for disputes is passed to the Land Tribunal as soon as possible.
• Two respondents stated that Regulation 5 would introduce dual calculations which may add complexity to the process.
• Two respondents noted that the 2017 Code changes are having an impact on interim rents (see Additional Commentary section below).

Question 5: Do you agree/disagree that Regulations 4 and 5 address the Backdating Issue, and will ensure landlords are not required to repay rents received for periods prior to the Renewals Provisions coming into effect as a direct result of these changes?

There were 16 responses to this question. Of those, 12 respondents agreed with the premise of the question, and 4 did not agree.

Key points:

• The majority of respondents agreed that Regulations 4 and 5 address the Backdating Issue and will ensure landlords are not required to repay rents received for periods prior to the Renewals Provisions coming into force as a direct result of these changes.
• While agreeing, one respondent stated that pre-commencement interim rents should be set at a similar level to the rent that was being paid before the interim rent application was made.
• Three respondents disagreed, asserting that the regulations would not address the Backdating Issue. One respondent asked for a provision to be introduced to the effect that interim rent is only payable where the amount due under the new tenancy exceeds that payable under the old tenancy.

Question 6: Do you agree/disagree that the Draft Regulations make clear that where Regulation 5 applies, the Renewals Provisions will be relevant to the calculation of interim rent for periods after the date on which they come into force?

There were 16 responses to this question. Of those, 13 respondents agreed with the premise of the question, 2 did not agree and 1 respondent neither agreed nor disagreed.

Key points:

• The majority of respondents agreed that the Draft Regulations make clear that where Regulation 5 applies, the Renewals Provisions will be relevant to the calculation of interim rent for periods after the date on which they come into force.
• One respondent asked for an apportionment provision to enable rent to be repaid where payment had been made in advance if required by the terms of a lease, but a subsequent in-term renewal reduced rent for the year.
• One respondent noted that the assessment under the “no network” valuation model post commencement will have an impact on landowner costs and market rents.

Question 7: Do you agree/disagree that the Draft Regulations make clear that, where Regulation 7 applies, any variation of rent for past periods will be unaffected by the amendments made by the Renewals Provisions?

There were 13 responses to this question. Of those, 9 respondents agreed with the premise of the question, 1 did not agree and 3 respondents neither agreed nor disagreed.

Key points:

• The majority of respondents agreed that the Draft Regulations make clear that, where Regulation 7 applies, any variation of rent for past periods will be unaffected by the amendments made by the Renewals Provisions.
• One respondent asked for greater clarity and drafting in the regulations on circumstances where the new scheme would apply, in addition when it does not apply.
• One respondent that disagreed stated that past periods would still be impacted by the Renewal Provisions.

Question 8: Do you agree/disagree that the Draft Regulations make clear that where Regulation 8 applies, any variation of rent for past periods will be unaffected by the amendments made by the Renewals Provisions for periods prior to the date on which they come into force?

There were 13 responses to this question. Of those, 12 respondents agreed with the premise of the question, and 1 did not agree.

Key points:

• The majority of respondents agreed that the Draft Regulations make clear that where Regulation 8 applies, any variation of rent for past periods will be unaffected by the amendments made by the Renewals Provisions for periods prior to the date on which they come into force. One respondent asked for greater clarity in the regulations on where the scheme would apply.

• One respondent that disagreed stated that past periods would still be impacted by the Renewal Provisions.

Question 9: Do you agree/disagree that Regulations 7 and 8 address the Backdating Issue and will ensure landlords are not required to repay rents received for periods prior to the Renewals Provisions coming into effect as a direct result of these changes?

There were 13 responses to this question. Of those, 10 respondents agreed with the premise of the question, and 3 did not agree.

Key points:

• The majority of respondents agreed that Regulations 7 and 8 address the Backdating Issue and will ensure landlords are not required to repay rents received for periods prior to the Renewals Provisions coming into effect as a direct result of these changes.
• Those that disagreed stated that the regulations only partially address the Backdating Issue, may lead to increased number of disputes, and that landlords will still be required to repay rent.

Question 10: Do you agree/disagree that the Draft Regulations make clear that where Regulation 8 applies, the Renewals Provisions may be relevant to any variation of rent for periods after to the date on which they come into force?

There were 13 responses to this question. All 13 respondents agreed with the premise of the question.

Key points:

• All respondents agreed that the Draft Regulations make clear that where Regulation 8 applies, the Renewals Provisions may be relevant to any variation of rent for periods after to the date on which they come into force as a direct result of these changes. One respondent asked for greater clarity in the regulations on where the scheme would apply.

Government response to section 2

The majority of respondents to the consultation agreed that the Draft Regulations were clear that landlords would not have to repay rent already received for periods before the Renewals Provisions come into force, addressing the Backdating Issue.

Regarding the potential need for ‘dual calculations’ of interim rent entailing unnecessarily complexity, on balance we decided that this was the right approach to avoid site providers having to pay back excessive amounts whilst ensuring a transition to “no network” that does not incentivise prolonged negotiations. The legislation as it stands can, in some cases, already involve a dual calculation, for example where one of the parties argues that an interim rent should not be the same as the future rent.

Regarding the view that pre-commencement interim rents should be set at a similar level to the rent that was being paid before the interim rent application was made, our view is that this would be a disproportionate interference with the 1954 Act, under which the interim rent is expected to equal the assessed rent.

Regarding the request for an apportionment provision to enable rent to be repaid where payment had been made in advance if required by the terms of a lease, but a subsequent in-term renewal reduced rent for the year, our view is that this is a contractual matter between the parties.

Section 3 - Supplementary questions

Question 11: Estimated numbers (where applicable) of any Live Tenancies to which you are a party.

Question 12: Estimated numbers (where applicable) of any Live Tenancies to which you are a party and to which Regulation 4 or 7 would not apply, if the Renewals Provisions came into force on the date of your response.

Question 13: Numbers of any leases to which you are a party that are potentially affected by the Renewals Provisions, but that have not yet reached the point at which a request for termination/renewal can be made.

There were 6 responses to question 11, 5 responses to question 12 and 6 responses to question 13.

Government response to section 3

Respondents provided data in relation to the above questions to assist us with parallel work underway relating to court applications and procedures^{[footnote 4]}. The data was provided on a confidential basis and details will not be shared as part of this response.

Additional commentary

As part of their responses, some respondents:

• Requested changes to legislation that are outside the scope of this policy; and/ or,
• Raised issues regarding the underlying policy relating to these regulations.

Out of scope issues

On the out of scope issues raised, the key points included:

• Some respondents stated that the 2017 Code changes are having an impact on interim rents. This refers to arguments that the market value of rents for rights to install telecoms apparatus have also reduced as an indirect consequence of the 2017 Code reforms.
• Requests to address current instances of backdating of rent under the 1954 Act when imposing interim rents where landlords are being required to repay rent, due to the impact of the “no network” valuation framework under the Code on the wider market.
• A suggestion that landlords should not have to repay interim rent if the court does not impose a new agreement.
• Noting that the 1954 Act offers a different general framework to the Code, such as its dispute procedures and some compensation provisions.
• A request that operators implement robust complaints procedures before commencement of the regulations.

Government response

This consultation was a technical consultation which sought views on whether the draft regulations deliver a clear transition between the 2 valuation models.

Under the 1954 Act site providers will continue to be liable for repaying interim rents where market value has reduced. This is a feature of the 1954 Act. The purpose of our commencement policy is to seek to avoid landlords having to repay rent already received for periods before the Renewals Provisions come into force as a direct result of the changes (when the market valuation model applied). Issues around repayments of rent under the 1954 Act are therefore outside the scope of this consultation and of the underlying policy intention.

The same position applies to the points made about the 1954 Act providing a different general framework. Again, such features apply beyond the specific valuation measures the Renewals Provisions are intended to align.

We would add for completeness that the new valuation framework makes specific provision for compensation, and that we are arranging for 1954 Act disputes to be dealt with in the same forum as Code cases.

The request for operators to implement effective complaints handling procedures prior to the commencement of renewal provisions falls outside the scope of this consultation.

Underlying policy or procedural issues

On issues regarding the underlying policy relating to these regulations, key points included:

• Four respondents questioned the validity of the consultation procedure as no coming to force date was provided.
• Some respondents expressed concerns about the “no network” valuation framework introduced by the Code. They called for a review of the valuation framework and the impact of the 2017 Code reforms, and for the framework not to be extended until a review had been carried out. These respondents feel that the “no network” valuation framework is inequitable, acts as a brake on investment and results in a significant amount of litigation.

Government response

As noted in the introduction and in the consultation document, the consultation was a technical consultation which sought views on whether the draft regulations deliver a clear transition between the 2 valuation models.

On responses questioning the validity of the consultation procedure as no coming to force date was provided in the draft regulations, the government disagrees.

The consultation provided respondents with the opportunity to comment on different coming into force options (as some respondents did) – including providing detailed commentary about the consequences of coming into force dates relative to the date of making the regulations. The consultation therefore enabled respondents to engage and for us to consider responses and take account of these in deciding the coming into force date.

Regarding criticisms of the “no network” valuation framework, the decision to extend it through the Renewals Provisions and the impact of the 2017 Code reforms - the government has taken the view that the 2017 Reforms were necessary to support faster, more cost-effective rollout of telecommunication networks.

The 2022 Act was accompanied by a De Minimis Impact Assessment and the decision made in the 2022 Act to extend the “no network” valuation model through the Renewal Provisions was subject to full Parliamentary scrutiny. As set out above, the regulations commence the 2022 Act Renewals Provisions and deliver the intended transition to the “no network” valuation mode. 

As highlighted in the consultation document, and reiterated in the introductory sections, this consultation exercise did not invite views on the underlying policy decisions already ratified by Parliament. Instead, the consultation sought views solely on whether the saving and transitional provisions in the Draft Regulations would give effect to the intention established by the 2022 Act.

1. Draft regulations to commence Sections 61 to 64 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 ↩

2. For the purposes of the consultation, “Live Tenancies” means tenancies that have reached or passed a date where – as appropriate – (1) under the 1954 Act, a section 25 or section 26 request may be served; or (2) under the 1996 Order, an Article 6 notice or Article 7 request may be served. ↩

3. The First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Chambers) Order 2010 ↩

4. This parallel work includes preparing for the implementation of section 65 of the 2022 Act, which will involve the transfer of jurisdiction for 1954 Act cases from the county court to the Lands Tribunal ↩