PLANS to install a 5G phone mast in Oldbury Court have been rejected by the city council.
Telent Technology Services applied to erect the 18m (59ft) mast at the junction of Sheppard Road and Lanaway Road, between the Oldbury Court Inn and the estate’s shops, on behalf of network operator EE.
It said the tower, with six antennas and two dishes, and four cabinets at ground level, was needed to address complaints about “poor” mobile phone signal in the area, and would also serve the 4G emergency services network.
But the application was rejected by city council planning officers, who said it would “result in unjustified harm upon the character and appearance of the open corner at the junction of Sheppard Road with Gill Avenue”.
The tower would have stood between two trees next to Sheppard Road, as shown by the red line in the picture above.
Eight residents objected to the plans, with some citing concerns over the effect of 5G radiation on the health of people and wildlife.
However the council’s case officer said the application could not be considered on health grounds as they do not form part of the “relevant criteria” for a decision under planning law.
Telent had submitted a certificate confirming the mast would conform to international public health guidelines.
‘Eyesore’ mast could have harmed trees
Other objections included the mast being an “eyesore”, and out of character with the surrounding area.
There was also an objection from the council’s arboricultural team, who looked at the potential effect of installing the mast and associated cables between two large mature trees that are part of the city’s “green infrastructure network”.
They said no tree protection plan or statement on how the tree work would be carried out had been provided.
The council’s case officer concluded that this meant the scheme had the potential to harm the trees, which “contribute positively to the character of the area”.
A taller 20m tower and cabinets already stand at the junction of Sheppard Road and Gill Avenue.
The council’s development management department said this would “result in a proliferation of bulky and tall street furniture which would be harmful to the character of the area and the residential visual amenity”.
The planners said: “The scale of the proposed telecommunications equipment would be disproportionate when compared with other built structures in the surrounding area and would subsequently appear incongruous.
“This would not respect the open and green character of the existing public realm and would be discordant within the wider street scene.”
EE said it had discounted 11 alternative sites – but council officers said it had not shown enough “robust evidence” that more appropriate sites could not be found.
EE has the right to appeal against the decision.