[3g-g]

Reported in the Woking News & Mail Online. (http://www.woking.co.uk/news/article/article_id=14091.html)

A bench? Now that is cluttered...


VILLAGERS are angry after a planning inspector granted permission for a 10 metre high mobile phone mast in Knaphill High Street.

The latest addition to the street furniture outside Barclays Bank on the High Street has angered residents who say it will add to the deterioration of the village scene and sparked fears that the mast and associated cabinets would block the view of drivers and pedestrians.

An original application for a telecommunications tower, three antennas and radio equipment was made by Hutchison 3G UK Limited in March last year.
The application was refused by Woking Borough Council which argued the mast and cabinets would result in a cluttered appearance in the street and would be detrimental to the character of the shopping centre.

An appeal was made by Hutchison 3G UK and a planning inspector reversed the decision subject to the condition that the colour of the mast and equipment cabinets be approved by Woking Borough Council.

In his decision, announced to the council on April 1, the planning inspector said that with an already cluttered street scene which includes a bench and bollards, the proposal would not be out of place.

The inspector said the mast and cabinet would detract slightly from the appearance of the village centre but said the High Street was not subject to any special designation or protection.

The company produced evidence which it said demonstrated that the mast was required to fill a gap in its network coverage. Residents have objected to the placing of the mast which they say will restrict the visibility of pedestrians and motorists near to a busy crossing in the High Street.

Adding to the line of street furniture, they claim the mast and cabinets could cause accidents as drivers emerge from parking bays on the High Street and do not see children on the pavement.

The borough council’s legal department is now looking into the decision after objections by councillors in Knaphill.

Diana Smith, county councillor for Woking West, said: “There is something wrong with legislation that seems to allow developers to put their masts wherever they like without public consultation and even when opposed by public planners.

Cllr Tony Hayes-Allen, councillor for Knaphill, said: “I am utterly astounded at the inspectors’ comments and I feel the idea is dangerous. There is a car park on both sides of the appeal site and the problem is visibility for motorists and pedestrians.”

Pauline Marshall, of Lane End Drive in Knaphill, said: “It is a very busy part of the High Street. The centre of the village is very congested at times. The cabinet would put a complete block on what anyone coming out of the car park can see.

“If there are people in wheelchairs or pushing buggies there is not much chance of them being seen by motorists and the decision seems contrary to public safety. If you look at the village strategy this decision seems to run contrary to what the council are trying to do.”

Peter Bryant, the borough council’s principal solicitor, said: “The decision of the inspector will be reported to the planning committee.

“The committee will be advised whether there are any legal grounds to challenge the decision.”

[Ben]

"10 metre high mobile phone mast in Knaphill High Street"

I'm sorry, but H3G could at least try and be descrete! Without seeing the site it's hard to comment, but by the sounds of it they're hardly trying to make it disappear into the surroundings.

Couldn't they microcell the highstreet and put a larger serving mast elsewhere? It just seems very lazy to me...

At the end of the day if it goes in at least there will be better coverage. Also, at least these folk aren't fussing about cancer and are actually objecting to its physical location. Would be interesting to know the outcome.

[Hands0n]

Our local rag in this Norf Kent town had a feature this week about three (count them ... three) co-located masts going up to serve the current 3G providers. Why can't they mast-share? Technology or politics?

[3g-g]

Was it lampost style sites?

[Hands0n]

All of the ones round here are of the simple post style, obviously (?) without the lamp on the top - although I do have a dim recollection of one town that had a mast that actually had a sodium light fitted to its top to blend in with the other lampposts.

[3g-g]

All of the ones round here are of the simple post style, obviously (?) without the lamp on the top - although I do have a dim recollection of one town that had a mast that actually had a sodium light fitted to its top to blend in with the other lampposts.

Yeah, we've rolled out lampost style sites with an actual light fitted, not as common as the plain old post types, but sometimes the local council want it to be as discreet as possible. People look up, see the light and presume it's a bog standard lamp post.

But to answer your question posted before, there's just too much equipment involved to have more than one operator through the one lampost. The feeder runs up the middle of the post themself can take up a lot of room, if its a 3 sectored lampost thats 6 runs, multiply that by 3 operators and you then have 18 lots of feeder... and then 3 big boxes housing the BTS equipment. The more antennae you need the bigger the structure has to be, and then wind loads and weights & structural engineering need to come into consideration, then foundations to cope with a bigger mast... straight away planning would knock it back, and it'd cost much more in terms of roll out.

There's the demand for service provision, so the networks try to resolve it with infill microcells, but people don't want to see the masts. Catch 22.

[Hands0n]

There's been huge outcry in many of the areas - worries about radiation etc..... Personally, I'm more scared of my kitchen microwave oven leakage (how many homes have a tester? or even a clue that these can leak).

I did read somewhere that if the mast is less than 15M they dont even need planning permission and the local council cannot refuse the installation. I think that's the nub of the three that are sprouting up in the nearby area mentioned in the local rag.

I see what you mean about the sharing - I suppose if it was really possible they'd be seriously considering it ....... if for no other reason basic economics!