A contentious bid to build a 20m 5G mast in what was described by a County Councillor as a ‘ridiculous position’ has been turned down by Isle of Wight Council planners.
County Hall rejected Mobile Broadband Network Limited’s (MBNL) prior approval application for a proposed 20m monopole, supporting 9 antenna apertures and 2 0.3m dishes on land next to 1 Perowne Way, Sandown.
The refusal follows scores of objections against the proposal, including from county councillors Ian Ward and Paul Brading.
Opponents of the mast raised issues including ‘health risks’, the development constituting an ‘eyesore’, transparency and public engagement, the environment, the mast’s height and its proximity to neighbouring residential property.
Councillor Brading said:
“I cannot believe that anyone thinks it appropriate to consider putting a mast in such a ridiculous position, being so low down, when there are much higher and more appropriate sites in Sandown if needed.
“This is an area of outstanding natural beauty which a 20-metre monopole will not enhance, neither will the boxes sited below, and is of course within a conservation area.
“A resident consultation would have been appropriate but has never been carried out.”
Article continues below this advertisement
A document included in MBNL’s application, ‘5G and Future Technology – Delivering the UK’s Telecoms Future’, says that though 5G telecommunications technology will ‘undoubtedly bring new opportunities and huge benefits’, there is a need for ‘new structures, antennas and ancillary equipment’.
It reads:
“It is estimated that 5G will directly contribute to an additional £7 billion a year to the UK economy in just 6 years from roll-out.
“In addition, 5G offers download speeds far in excess of what can be achieved today, even by fixed line broadband. Such increased speeds and low latency provide the potential for far greater opportunities.
“The internet and mobile connectivity rely upon the deployment of new fibre networks.
“Utilising these fibre networks allows each mobile base station to link back into the wider core network, however, the requirements in the future are for ubiquitous coverage and this will mean the more complex, more remote locations throughout the country will need further new installations.”
County Hall has not yet published a report explaining the refusal.
Good decision, these masts are dangerous for people
they need placing in areas that are not close to properties.
Good grief. Best you put your tin hat on then.
Let them install it outside your home then,
bet you won’t be too happy about that,
you could always put your tin hat on.
Lol
Wot, in case it fell over in a stiff wind? More chance of that than anything else. Did you know the same ‘ooo, dangerous’ crap came out with 4g, 3g, 2g, and the initial 90’s liftoff….and yet I bet you use a mobile every single day. Far more radiofrequency radiation and statistical risk of cancer going right through your ear, and both SIGNIFICANTLY less than the humble x-ray, and I’ll bet you’ve had a fair few of those across your lifetime. Still here though? Well, most of you I ‘spose. Brain’s a bit iffy. Perhaps it is that phone, after all.
Sorry, theoretical risk, not statistical risk. Statistics on the brain, me. It’s a new medical condition.
So you are happy when you can’t get social media on your phone because of no signal?
Good Luck with that one! My understanding is that 5G, Vodafone, etc. masts are regarded a ‘strategic infrastructure’ and can effectively discount local objections.
Hope I’m wrong!!
Why don’t they just ask the rugby club if they can put the mast in their car park area? I’m sure they could come to an agreement that doesn’t impact the pitches.