Skip to main content

Land access

The complaint
The carrier planned to install a cable under a waterway, notifying the landowner as required. The landowner objected, citing concerns about environmental impact, the cable's location and the timing of the installation.
The outcome
The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman required the carrier to notify the landowner of start and finish dates, except for the three specific days, to prevent inconvenience. It found the carrier had addressed the landowner's concerns and met its obligations, allowing the installation to proceed.

The issue

The carrier wanted to install cable under an internal waterway to improve its telecommunications network. A carrier can access private land to install low-impact facilities if it complies with procedures under Schedule 3 and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 2021 (Code).

The carrier gave the landowner the required notice seeking access to the landowner’s land for a period of about one year to install the cable.

The landowner objected in writing to the activity proceeding. The landowner considered the proposal did not sufficiently protect the environment, was concerned to know the location of the cable once installed, and said the timing proposed was problematic.

In response, the carrier explained its works would not have an ongoing impact on the land but agreed to take further steps. The carrier agreed to clarify the location of the cable on the land after installation and to avoid some dates.

The landowner was not satisfied with the carrier’s response and asked the carrier to refer its objections to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, who sought further information and assessed the objections.

The investigation

The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman directed the carrier to notify the landowner of its start and finish dates (excluding some dates) because the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman was satisfied not knowing start and finish dates for three days of work over about one year would cause the landowner detriment and inconvenience. Otherwise, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman was satisfied the landowner’s concerns were addressed by the carrier meeting its obligations under Schedule 3 and the Code.

The outcome

After the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman’s decision the carrier was permitted to undertake the activity.