Opposing an MSV request? Tread carefully

July and August 2025 saw Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited (“CTIL”) seeking the tribunal’s imposition of multi-skilled visit (“MSV”) agreements pursuant to paragraph 26 of the Code at least twice against respondent Barlaya Limited in the first case and United Space Limited in the second case (along with three other site-provider respondents).

The first case involved was in relation to a prestigious historical building in central London which was designed by well-respected architectural firm, Sidell Gibson, and CTIL sought to access the rooftop and certain communal areas for a non-intrusive MSV.

The second case, quite differently, centred on an industrial estate in Wigan, with CTIL seeking access to the service yard to assess its suitability for telecom infrastructure.

In both cases, the respondents cited concerns about their sites being used to house telecoms equipment with the respondent in the first case referring to heritage concerns given the site’s location in the Trafalgar Square Conservation Area, aesthetic and reputational damage and potential diminution in the property’s value. Similarly, in the second case, the respondents cited concerns over detrimental aesthetic and environmental impact, and the damage that would be caused to the local economy as a result of the respondent’s sure need to find alternative premises if a mast site were installed. The respondent in this case also referred to potential future redevelopment plans which would be scuppered if an installation were to go ahead. In both cases there was also frustration expressed at the fact that multiple MSVs had been sought.

In response to these observations, the tribunal referred to the question of whether CTIL had demonstrated a ‘good arguable case’ that the test in paragraph 21 of the Code for the imposition of an MSV agreement had been met (the “Paragraph 21 Test”).  The considerations are as follows:

1. Can the prejudice caused to the site provider be compensated by money?

2. Does the public benefit of allowing the MSV outweigh any prejudice caused?

It was held:

• Non-intrusive MSVs are limited to measurements and readings, so they are not likely to cause significant prejudice.
• The public interest in improved mobile serves justifies allowing an MSV, especially where specific connectivity issues have been identified.
• Objections which relate to future installations are not relevant, and any objection relating to redevelopment claims is also likely to be unsuccessful if unsupported and premature.
• An operator’s request for multiple MSVs does not necessarily impact upon their reasonableness, especially where planning requirements in a heritage-sensitive area may necessitate changes in design and the need to respond to planning/visual amenity objections, or where they are a natural and necessary step in an evolving site assessment process.

The Birketts view

Even if a landowner may object to their land or building being used to house telecoms apparatus in the future, this is not a reason to object to an MSV. Any objection should be based on the detrimental impact that the inspection/survey itself would cause to the landowner’s site, and unless such prejudice cannot be compensated by money and it does not outweigh the public benefit of it, the tribunal will allow the MSV.

In the absence of specific concerns as to surveys taking place, landowners are better to cooperate with operators in the first instance and allow access, saving their arguments against hypothetical installations until the operator asks to install.

While the tribunal may be cautious and critical of repeated notices, it ultimately accepted that multiple MSVs may be necessary, especially in complex or sensitive locations.