5G telecoms mast near homes is turned down
The erection of a 15-metre high 5G telecommunications mast in a residential suburb of Wolverhampton has been rejected on the grounds it would be intrusive to nearby homes.
An application by Reading-based CK Hutchison Networks to install the pole and equipment cabinets in Day Avenue, Wednesfield, was refused by council planners who said it would result in “unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenities”.
The plan forms part of the local authority’s ongoing digital innovation programme to improve coverage and capacity in relation to 5G telecommunications – the fifth generation technology standard for broadband cellular networks.
In a report to planners, Cameron Wilson from DOT Surveying – agants acting on behalf of the applicant – said: “It is recognised that high-speed mobile connectivity is the lifeblood of a community, from facilitating educational benefits and providing access to vital services, to improving communications for local businesses and enabling ecommerce.
“It also facilitates the increased need and demand for working from home, as well as allowing us to enjoy greater access to social, media and gaming for leisure activities.
“The very nature of installing new 5G mast infrastructure within such an urban setting requires a balance between the need to extend coverage and the risk of increasing visual intrusion to residents. There is an acute need for a new base station to provide effective coverage and in this case, the height of the street pole is the minimum required to bring the benefits of 5G to this area.”
In a report refusing the application, planning officer Jobe Elwell said: “The installation of a telecommunications mast would present unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenities. The proposed pole would be directly opposite several dwellings along Pritchard Avenue, off Day Avenue.
“The addition of a mast in close proximity to neighbouring homes would be detrimental to their visual amenities. Whilst the application includes some discounted alternative options, including a less harmful one at Dudley Crescent, these were nor considered.
“Additionally, the opportunity was provided by the case officer to submit amended plans to change the location of the proposal. However, this was not acknowledged, considered or responded to by the planning agent,” he added.
“Whilst the proposal would adversely affect the character of the street scene, this was not considered to be truly detrimental to the character of the area.”
