Briefing 2006 01
Mobile Phone Facilities on High Rise Flats
Residential leases typically require a contribution towards the cost of
the renewal of waterproofing to any flat roofs but increasingly
Leaseholders find that their landlords are allowing mobile phone
companies to mount aerials and dishes above their homes.
Good Practice for landlords.
In the light of the circumstances set out in this briefing note, the
following practice should be followed by social housing landlords
considering proposals to lease their rooftops to phone companies.
The roofs should be inspected by a qualified surveyor to ascertain the
condition of the existing waterproofing, parapet walls, security and the
safety of access arrangements.
A design exercise taking into account the findings of the survey, all
safety and security risks and alterations required for increased access
requirements. The extent of this work might include the definition of
access routes including the erection of handrails which in turn are
likely to necessitate changes to the detailing of the waterproofing.
It would not be reasonable for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA)
and any leaseholders to bear the cost of the works necessitated by
this redesign of the roof to suit its new purpose. If a contribution in
consideration of the cost of any replacement of the waterproofing is
sought then it should be backed up with itemised pricing for the
waterproofing without the additional features.
Landlords should consider seeking insurance-backed guarantees
when they tender the works and this will provide a check on the
measures to protect the roof that have been specified.
From the moment that other users begin to take access onto a
roof the cost of repairs to it should cease to be a burden on the
HRA and the leaseholders.
The Health Effects of living in close proximity to Aerials are
controversial. What is not controversial is that these developments
require planning permission and therefore public consultation.
When all the true costs have been evaluated and the results of
proper consultation considered then landlords will be in a
position to decide whether they want to go ahead with the
proposal.
London Leaseholders’ Network
Incorporating the LONDON FORUM FOR COUNCIL LEASEHOLDERS’ ASSOCIATIONS
Studio 7F3, N17 Studios, 784 – 788, High Road, Tottenham, London, N17 0DA
info@londonleaseholders.org.uk
Fax (020) 880 880
Tel (020) 880 880 12
1 of 4
02
Briefing 2006 01
High Roofs are dangerous places. Any employer and building owner
who allows people onto them should ensure that all Health and Safety
aspects of their visits are properly dealt with including keeping
adequate records of their visits.
Paramount on any list of residents concerns is security to their flats
and any shared areas whilst disturbance from noise comes a close
second. Contractors visiting to install rooftop equipment bring with
them the risk of damage to internal finishes in common areas and lifts,
confrontation with residents and the certainty of the noise of drilling
into the structure. These disturbances contradict residents right to the
quiet enjoyment of their homes and landlords should get their rooftop
tenants to sign up to a code of practice designed to at least mitigate
these negative aspects of their presence.
Each roof top tenant should be bound by a formal lease. It would
make sense if local authorities co-operated to agree a common
framework for these.
Inevitably there will come a time when rooftop tenants decide to move
out and a procedure for dealing with this ought to be in place from the
outset with certain provisions written into their leases. If the tenants
go before the building itself come to the end of its life then allowance
should be made for the removal of all equipment and reinstatement of
its general condition. As the cost of subsequent maintenance of the
rooftop structure such as parapet walls and waterproofing would once
again come back onto the Housing Revenue Account with their
portion being born by leaseholders there would need to be a
reassessment of any safety measures that become redundant once
roof top tenants have left. It would for instance not be reasonable for
leaseholders to be paying for the painting of handrails that are no
longer needed.
Landlords should ‘prepare to repel boarders!’
Pirate radio broadcasters and suicide cases are a problem on some
blocks and it is not unknown for landlords to imply that residents are
necessarily to blame for these nefarious activities and that in
consequence of this the landlord and his mobile phone tenants are
somehow absolved of any responsibility for subsequent damage.
Landlords are responsible for the safety of their buildings and this
includes a duty of care to keep roofs secure against unauthorised
visitors. They also have a responsibility to keep their buildings in
repair and their roofs free of any leaks that might affect the occupants.
London Leaseholders’ Network
Incorporating the LONDON FORUM FOR COUNCIL LEASEHOLDERS’ ASSOCIATIONS
Studio 7F3, N17 Studios, 784 – 788, High Road, Tottenham, London, N17 0DA
info@londonleaseholders.org.uk
Fax (020) 880 880
Tel (020) 880 880 12
2 of 4
02
Briefing 2006 01
The Design of Tower Block Roofs.
Many of the roofs to flats upon which mobile phone equipment is now
being fitted have the original covering from when they were built in the
1960s and 70s. There are 2 basic categories of roof finish. Built-uproofing has a life expectancy of some 10 – 15 years while mastic
asphalt has a life expectancy of some 20 – 25 years. Consequently
many of these roof coverings are now at the end of their useful lives.
Both these materials provide a good, relatively elastic, waterproofing
when they are new but become increasingly brittle with age under
exposure to sunlight and the thermal stresses due to weather. Neither
material is suitable for foot traffic beyond that necessary for
maintenance of the roof itself such as occasional access to gutters.
At the time when these roofs were originally designed mobile
phones were the subject only of science fiction and the roof
surfacing will have been designed to maximise the waterproofing
and minimise the cost of maintenance. Therefore they will not
have been optimised for, what was then, unnecessary access.
Where a flat roof is to be subjected to extensive pedestrian traffic
measures should be taken to protect both the roof surface and those
who take access across it. The surface of asphalt can be protected
by the application of a paving grade of asphalt above the normal lower
waterproofing layer at the time when the roof finish is applied. Both
asphalt and built up roofing can be protected by the application of
porous concrete ‘promenade tiles’ providing that the remaining life of
the finish warrants this expenditure. More elaborate protection such
as duck-boarding or metal-decked walkways could be justifiable in
some circumstances but they would normally require so much
modification to the detailing of the roof that these would be impractical
to install other than at the time of renewal of the waterproofing.
Residents who live with unprotected flat roofs will be aware that they
are advised not to step out onto them for fear of negating any
guarantee that the roofing contractor might have provided, or worse,
being blamed for any subsequent leaks.
In practice it is almost impossible to ascribe damage to a particular
individual unless there are eye witnesses and the only advice that a
surveyor can give is that people should be kept off a roof unless they
are providing sufficient financial recompense to cover the full cost of
maintenance of the roof concerned.
London Leaseholders’ Network
Incorporating the LONDON FORUM FOR COUNCIL LEASEHOLDERS’ ASSOCIATIONS
Studio 7F3, N17 Studios, 784 – 788, High Road, Tottenham, London, N17 0DA
info@londonleaseholders.org.uk
Fax (020) 880 880
Tel (020) 880 880 12
3 of 4
02
Briefing 2006 01
Code of Practice for Mobile Phone Tenants.
 Companies leasing space for rooftop equipment to have in place a
health and safety policy kept available to the landlord on request.
 Companies leasing space for rooftop equipment to abide by the
Construction (Design and Management Regulations 1994) and
carry out written risk assessments in respect of all works including
consideration of any working alone that is proposed. These
assessments to be available for inspection by the landlord.
 Any recognised residents association to which residents in the
block concerned belong to be notified 2 days in advance before any
visit take place either by email or by fax.
 All visits to be by a minimum of 2 persons with one responsible
solely for safety and security.
 Visitors by car or van are to respect the prevailing parking regime
on the premises and not park in residents’ parking bays.
 All visitors to sign in to a visitors book that is kept on the premises,
open to inspection by both the landlord’s staff and officers of a
recognised residents association where one exists.
 All visitors to carry a signed ID card with a photo-likeness and wear
it so that it can readily be seen and to show it when asked to do so.
 Lift walls and floor to be protected with removable panels before
being used for the carrying of equipment. These panels to be
removed immediately after this use has ceased for the day.
 There is to be no ‘hot working’ (welding grinding etc.) without a
written risk assessment, or without prior notification to the landlord.
 No flammable materials to be stored on the roofs.
 No smoking to be allowed on the premises.
 No playing of music such as from radios on the premises.
 No shouting, lewd or obscene behaviour on the premises.
 Visitors to respect the fact that they are guests in a building that
contains people’s homes and show consideration to residents.
 Upon leaving each day visitors should take with them all rubbish to
dispose of elsewhere and not in the facilities provided for the
residents.
London Leaseholders’ Network
Incorporating the LONDON FORUM FOR COUNCIL LEASEHOLDERS’ ASSOCIATIONS
Studio 7F3, N17 Studios, 784 – 788, High Road, Tottenham, London, N17 0DA
info@londonleaseholders.org.uk
Fax (020) 880 880
Tel (020) 880 880 12
4 of 4
02