permission refused for 5Gmast

Reading our local paper today I noticed that permission has been refused for CK Hutchison Group to build a 5G mast, the council says it is too tall, they also refused one a few months ago by the police station. This last one they refused I am wondering what is the real reason because where it is going to be no one is going to take that much notice as it will be close to an industrial estate that looks like a bomb have hit it.

I remember even early last year or the year before that the council said they don't want 5G in the city, so maybe this is the real reason, but we have 5G already, very limited and from one mast stuck on top of a Hotel.
i feel the council is wasting time and money, as the Hutchison will no doubt go to someone where higher to get the permission.

A cynical view would be that a few councillors have shares in BT.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

i feel the council is wasting time and money, as the Hutchison will no doubt go to someone where higher to get the permission.

CK Hutchison (the owners of Three) are installing many tens of thousands of new monopole style Phase 7 or Phase 8 masts around the UK. This seems to be because they have purchased / rented a lot of 3.5 GHz spectrum from Ofcom.

Mobile masts are strange things in planning, basically the ONLY two things councils can object on are height and size of the street furniture. So many councils go back and forth with the network operators until the operator meets the councils requirement or moves is slightly.

So in a nearby town a proposed 25 metre mast ended up being 22 metres, and it is replacing an 18 metre, so most people don't notice! Another one moved slightly down a road. Took a year of back and forth.

If you can get onto the planning site of your local council and look up the area in question, the documentation is often fascinating.

If the council rejects forever the operator can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and the DCMS whom both have powers to force through. This can take years however. (Only because the network operators have 'code powers' under the Telecommunications Act 1984).

Edited by jchamier (Sun 08-Jan-23 17:00:11)

In reply to a post by pluralist:

A cynical view would be that a few councillors have shares in BT.

Not normally the case. In most cases Openreach are getting a lot of income from supplying a 10 Gigabit connection to the mast. (Even if purchased through Virgin Media or Vodafone's network division, they can be installed by Openreach).

Yes, but if EE want a mast Openreach still get that revenue.

20 metres, that is pretty tall to be honest, thearticle here is for the one by the police station, but there is something about the one on Roman road which was the one was on about.

The reason given for the refusal of the one by the police station in that it is near a section of the city wall, a scheduled ancient monument is a load of bull after all they built the monstrous police station there, that is more noticeable than a mast.

Our council is full of greenies trying to get rid of cars and spending money on stupid things like cycle paths that go nowhere, silly pots for trees ion the middle of the roads, so Io think this we don't want 5G here thing. It doesn't bother me as I don't have a 5G phone and not that bothered about having one, saying that I am still not sure about my views on 5G

In reply to a post by pluralist:

Yes, but if EE want a mast Openreach still get that revenue.

True, but they’re both part of BT Group plc !

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

20 metres, that is pretty tall to be honest,

Needs to be above the tree line… the leaves absorb the signal …. this is why 20 metres is what you see for most new masts. Some Vodafone masts near here are 25 metres. Central government planners approved the change years ago. Local councils are not Radio Frequency engineers sadly.
https://goo.gl/maps/GrQbYvu95HkDvQmU8

It doesn't bother me as I don't have a 5G phone and not that bothered about having one, saying that I am still not sure about my views on 5G

It doesn’t matter if its 5G or not, the same mast is needed for 2G,3G,4G,5G etc. Its a radio transmitter for 700 MHz upto 3500 MHz, and any of the licensed frequencies can be used for any technology. (Ofcom liberalised).

Edited by jchamier (Sun 08-Jan-23 21:05:03)

I suggest you know I am well aware of that. However the Openreach CEO is concerned purely with his own balance sheet and P & L.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by pluralist:

A cynical view would be that a few councillors have shares in BT.

Not normally the case. In most cases Openreach are getting a lot of income from supplying a 10 Gigabit connection to the mast.

Whether or not the city councillors are aware of that is irrelevant if they do have shares in BT Group. They would just care about the consolidated group accounts and dividends.

I think I'm right is saying that as far as Openreach accounts are concerned it would need to charge EE something nor hugely removed from what it charges other providers, so not a significant detrimental effect on its notional profit.

Edit: Reversed letters in "detrimental" corrected.

Edited by pluralist (Sun 08-Jan-23 21:57:52)

In reply to a post by pluralist:

A cynical view would be that a few councillors have shares in BT.

A reasonable view would be NIMBYs gonna NIMBY. IIRC the bulk of Three's mast requests have been declined nationwide. Masts from everyone have been declined, just Three have seen more masts declined as they're building far more than everyone else: they're the only ones serious about 5G.