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.

In reply to a post by pluralist:

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

Unless Openreach have issued share capital of their own and councillors own that the share price of BT Group as a whole is concerned with group-wide revenues and profits, not any one business unit. Money shuffling around the group doesn't increase profit, only revenue and expense.

Ignoring any other impacts of it being there it's actually better for the group's P&L to have Three pay them for a mast rather than EE so be pretty silly of councillors that are BT shareholders to block Three masts. Also be an appalling use of taxpayer money as they'd lose the appeals every time, and Three are very willing to appeal..

Edited by XGS_Is_On (Sun 08-Jan-23 22:25:24)

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

they're the only ones serious about 5G.

Well they are the owners of the bulk of spectrum (140 MHz) in the n78 band at over 3 GHz which has less propogation than spectrum owned by Vodafone at 900 MHz or EE at 1800 MHz for example. Other operators are likely to use their existing spectrum assets at lower frequency to deploy 5G. As previously, there is no longer a connection between frequency and transmission technology, its limited by the hardware the operators have installed and their backhaul capacity. (Also some are additionally engaged in removing Huawei hardware which is causing a drop in 5G coverage in some areas that had coverage. This should self correct over time).

Three’s owners (CK Hutchison Holdings) are reported to be concerned that after 20 years and significant investment, the ARPU and subscriber numbers are low. Probably this ‘massive growth’ in their own masts is a last ditch attempt to grow the customer base.

See also the indicated talks with Vodafone, so far only indicated. No CMA referral etc.

Edited by jchamier (Sun 08-Jan-23 22:11:13)

In reply to a post by pluralist:

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.

My understanding of the undertaking BT Group made to Ofcom was that there would be ‘structural separation’ so Openreach is required to charge all telecommunications operators the same. If you think/know otherwise, Ofcom would be interested to know. Its why they are not “BT Openreach” but just Openreach…. At arms length from the rest of group.

However money they make (and I read they make good profits) is sent back to the group board, and group board is consulted on investment decisions, but not operational decisions.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

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.

Yeah they're learning hard into this:

1. By virtue of scale, design and siting it is considered that the proposed mast together with the associated ancillary equipment would introduce a prominent and obtrustive feature within the street scene in an elevated position when viewed across the adjacent open land which would appear at odds in context to the appearance of the area resulting in significant detrimental mpacts and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policy CS10 and Local Development Framework DPD Policy D9.

In this case an appeal was won after the mast was reduced in size from 20m to 15m and the mast is now sited.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

In this case an appeal was won after the mast was reduced in size from 20m to 15m and the mast is now sited.

Lot of councillors would like masts to be hidden in trees (some trees can get to 15m) but the downside is the signal is attenuated in the leafy months, and even worse if its raining (wet leaves). Hence the push to taller mass recently.

I gather as frequencies increased this problem gets worse, similarly the higher freqencies are less good at penetrating buildings, either office blocks or domestic homes. And many modern build domestic homes have metal foil backed insulation which attenuates almost any signal. (Which is why the networks mostly all now offer WiFi calling, assuming you have home broadband with WiFi !!).

Looks as though the council in question have a lot of independent councillors, too. I would be shocked if they weren't extremely hostile to masts and, indeed, development in general in their historic cathedral city.

Can't see there being anything untoward. Three will probably appeal, they may reduce the mast height if feasible, and going by the usual pattern of these things will probably win.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

Can't see there being anything untoward. Three will probably appeal, they may reduce the mast height if feasible, and going by the usual pattern of these things will probably win.

Yes a lower mast provides coverage that currently there is no mast.

Three are making some strange decisions though, around here they have not upgraded their (~15+ year old) mast that has slow 4G (40 Mbps) but they are adding these new poles around the town, which means nobody in my part of the housing estate is with Three, as EE (on the same mast) is giving 200+ Mbps on 4G and didn't collapse during Covid.

Just bizarre decision... surely cheaper to upgrade existing first?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, as you seem to be less accurate in correcting me than what I actually posted. But it's quite late and I shall be out most of what is now today so need to keep this very short.

You know far more than I about the technology. I am less sure you understand the commercial aspects wrt Openreach charges to customers plus BT Group book-keeping and internal accounting. (As opposed to the overall group accounts).

The Group accounts filing with Companies House is 215 pages. Openreach accounts tell us nothing useful in this context.

I need to go to bed ! Maybe more tonight or Tuesday.

I seen Telford Council approved 5G mast in Telford by the factory sites, behind the trees and nearby the railway line.

Stafford Park 18 - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Stericycle+(SRCL...

Halesfield 2 - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6441103,-2.4220014...

Telford International Centre bus stop - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6734953,-2.4427275...

This onewhich is not really that far away in is not so tall, but have been there for a while, I think it is O2.
I don't think our council will be in power after the local elections this year, I think people will vote the snobs Tory party back in sadly, but then again this lot have been a waste of time as well. I am going to vote for my cat. so once the Tories get back in they will allow everything to go ahead.

If I had a working network and wanted to update it, I'd prefer to add new bases before upgrading existing ones. Upgrade the old ones after the new ones have taken the traffic.

In reply to a post by hoopla:

If I had a working network and wanted to update it, I'd prefer to add new bases before upgrading existing ones. Upgrade the old ones after the new ones have taken the traffic.

But they're being modified all the time, over the last 2.5 years EE has dramatically upgraded the operational mast here, with new antenna panels and additional frequencies. So its not unusual in mobile telecoms.

Oo The Halesfield one might give me some coverage here in Madeley. I'll have to check the 5g router options again.

In reply to a post by stevebrowne:

Oo The Halesfield one might give me some coverage here in Madeley. I'll have to check the 5g router options again.

Good luck with your 5G router. Let me know how you get on.

In a nearby town called Ledbury, our council have given permission for CK Hutchison to build a tall mast, by a block of flats and yet won't allow one close to an industrial estate here. I really don't understand the thinking of our council, but they are politicians at the end of the day and I don't understand any of them to be honest.

I did laugh when CK Hutchison said that 5G was essential.
They are having a laugh, it is not essential at all, I doubt anyone is going to notice a difference on their mobile phones at all.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

In a nearby town called Ledbury, our council have given permission for CK Hutchison to build a tall mast, by a block of flats and yet won't allow one close to an industrial estate here. I really don't understand the thinking of our council, but they are politicians at the end of the day and I don't understand any of them to be honest.

You can always just ring the council planning department and ask them.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

You can always just ring the council planning department and ask them.

I am not bothered as such as I don't use 5G, I am just wondering where their thinking comes from, but then these are the same people who spent a lot of money on giant plant pots to put in the middle of a link road.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

I am not bothered as such as I don't use 5G, I am just wondering where their thinking comes from, but then these are the same people who spent a lot of money on giant plant pots to put in the middle of a link road.

Not really... lots of marketing is attached to the "5G" label but in reality it should be described as increasing capacity. Since 3G is turning off this year (and is already a single track road) and Ofcom lets the networks run any technology on any frequency, the "5G mast" is technically incorrect description. Works to wind people up in the media.

A new mast is increased capacity for a mobile network. With CK Hutchison its obvious these will be their new Phase 7 or Phase 8 masts with 4G and 5G radio cabinets. Anyone with a Three, or SMARTY SIM and a 4G only phone will still notice significant increased capacity.

5G is happening, as 4G did now 11 years ago, and as data consumption all all 4 mobile networks is increasing dramatically, the infrastructure needs to be upgraded.

If you check your local council website it often has a planning map and you can find out the full details. Most councils can only object based on height. Health & Safety has been handled by Govt centrally, and sadly most councils do not have any councillers with STEM skills whom could evaluate a radio frequency proposal for TV, FM or DAB or mobile network.

Edited by jchamier (Tue 17-Jan-23 11:14:38)

Good speed 5G in Telford https://www.speedtest.net/result/a/8992210074

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by hoopla:

If I had a working network and wanted to update it, I'd prefer to add new bases before upgrading existing ones. Upgrade the old ones after the new ones have taken the traffic.

But they're being modified all the time, over the last 2.5 years EE has dramatically upgraded the operational mast here, with new antenna panels and additional frequencies. So its not unusual in mobile telecoms.

Round here, it looks like Three care about 5G, EE whilst having an awesome 4G service, the 5G coverage feels like they doing the absolute minimal just so they can advertise the city as activated. Also looking at the tiny coverage radius of the 5G masts, its clear EE need to increase density, as even if they enabled every mast here, there will be gaps due to the distance between the masts,

The permitted development legislation for telecoms installations is quite complex https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedul..., but for a mast under 25m the LPA needs to show that the application does not comply with permitted development requirements.
Planning in Hereford is controlled by the County Council and applications and decisions can be found here https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/info/200142/plannin...
The Bath Road application was refused because the land is protected as it affects a Scheduled Ancient Monument. An appeal was rejected so the Council's decision was sound. https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/info/200142/plannin...
The Roman Road application looks on the surface more contestable so it will be interesting to see whether it is appealed. https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/info/200142/plannin...

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

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.

The police station might well have been built 50 years ago. That does not mean you want to further degrade the built environment with a 20m high mast in 2023. Basically, any mobile company putting in planning permission for a mast next to a scheduled ancient monument is [removed by TBB] if they think it will get approved.

Edited by seb (Thu 26-Jan-23 17:17:53)

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

[removed by TBB]

I remember when they built the monstrosity of the police station, and now they want to build another one, If they really cared about this ancient monument then they would not have allowed Tesco all those years ago to build a store that covers the wall at the top, this link for google maps,show the back of Tescos, have look at the Windows and you will see how they have covered the wall, the wall is still at the top, just sandwich in the building. How did they get permission for that?
People wonder why I don't trust politicians, in fact I trust very few people

Where you see Debenhams, that was a total white elephant, used to be our Cattle market, the land was sold for pittance and yet £10 million was spent from our council tax to move the cattle market and what good does it do us? This shopping centre took a load of the shops out of the city centre, even after we were told it would not happen. A load of restaurants opened there, I called them glorified fast food places a lot have closed now, but there is a local Burger place that seems to be doing ok if you can afford to pay a tenner for a basic burger, they may be nice, but a tenner for a burger?

The only kind of good thing there is the cinema, but Ii doubt it would have opened there if it did not have cheap rent for the first few years. IO do think it is too big for the city and sadly it is an Odeon, I have been there 4 times since it opened.
Sorry but selling that land for pittance was a disgrace and the public having to pay for the cattle market to be moved was another disgrace, again, people wonder why I think companies, politicians and organisations can't be trusted.

Edited by seb (Thu 26-Jan-23 17:17:08)

I have removed a part of your post as it contains masked bad language.
If you need to mask it then it's not something you should be posting.

We usually remove entire posts, but given your good record on the forum I haven't done that, but appreciate if you could bear in mind on future posts

seb