Summary

  • Ofcom has proposed granting Electronic Communications Code powers to Harrelli Communications Limited, both for an electronic communications network and for infrastructure offered to other providers. Responses close on 23 November; no final direction has been made.
  • Harrelli plans initial fibre routes in Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and London. The statutory test weighs public benefit, the need for these powers, equipment sharing and ability to meet liabilities.

Harrelli has five cities on its opening map and one important key still behind the counter. On 21 October, Ofcom opened a consultation on whether to give the company Electronic Communications Code powers. Its 22-page notice describes a proposed optical-fibre network, passive ducts and chambers, lit-fibre and wavelength services, and links among data centres. The first locations on Harrelli's plan are Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and London. A line on a planning map is not yet a cable in the ground. The legal decision is what makes the route easier to build.

Code powers are substantial. An operator can install and maintain apparatus in public highways without obtaining a separate street-works licence for each job, and some installations benefit from planning-law exemptions. Where negotiations with a private landowner fail, the operator can ask a court to impose an agreement. That last step remains a court process. Ofcom's proposal covers both Harrelli's own network and a system of infrastructure it would make available to other network providers. It is a request for a place in the infrastructure rulebook, not a permit stamped for five specific streets.

The company says it intends to use Openreach's Physical Infrastructure Access wherever possible: existing ducts and poles can do some work before a new trench is considered. It also intends to share spare capacity with other operators. That makes Ofcom's four-part test more interesting than a yes-or-no question about fibre. The regulator must examine public benefit, whether the network is practicable without Code powers, whether apparatus sharing is encouraged, and whether the applicant can meet liabilities arising from the rights. Each condition puts a cost or benefit outside the applicant's presentation slides.

Harrelli argues that individual street-works licences would raise cost and delay, leaving it on a different footing from established operators. Ofcom provisionally agrees that the proposed network would not be practicable without Code powers and that shared apparatus would help avoid unnecessary duplication. The regulator also acknowledges road closures, noise and visible equipment when work begins. It has not mapped those effects street by street: the ultimate location choices remain with Harrelli. The consultation asks the public to judge a proposed right before anyone can point to every place where it may be used.

The quietest line in the file concerns money. Harrelli says it understands the obligation to provide funds for liabilities under Regulation 16. A director confirms that sufficient funds will be in place, with a certificate, if and when required. Ofcom provisionally considers that enough for the statutory liability factor. The notice does not say the funds have already been deposited. This distinction matters because a right that lowers the builder's entry cost can leave others paying for poorly repaired surfaces, displaced apparatus or unfinished works if responsibility is not funded when it becomes real.

The Companies House register confirms Harrelli's corporate identity and active status. It cannot certify five future routes. Ofcom received the complete Code application on 7 August and will consider responses received by 5 p.m. on 23 November before deciding whether to issue a direction. The next public document that matters is the decision itself: it will show whether the street key is cut, and on what terms.

Sources