Telecoms giants slam mast refusal

TWO telecoms giants have attacked the decision to refuse plans to upgrade a Bath mast to 5G – two months before a taller tower was approved only metres away.

Lodging an appeal, EE and 3 singled out the actions of Bath and North East Somerset Council leader Kevin Guy and his deputy, Sarah Warren.

The Bathavon North ward councillors cited the visual impact of the proposed 20-metre mast in Larkhall Sports Club when they called for the application to be considered by the planning committee.

But when they spoke at the meeting in December 2020 their focus was on the perceived health risks of 5G. Cllr Guy said it would be “irresponsible” to approve a mast so close to a nursery and

Cllr Warren said the 343 objectors did not want to be used as

“guinea pigs in a global experiment”.

Planning officer Chris GriggsTrevarthan warned councillors against “flying in the face” of government guidance that 5G is safe and said the council would leave itself open to a costly appeal if it was used as a reason for refusal.

Instead the planning committee rejected the application as an inappropriate development in the green belt.

That position was disputed by EE and 3 because the existing 15-metre mast has been in place for more than a decade and a brand new 23.4-metre mast was approved in Charlcombe Lane, some 70 metres away, two months later.

Vodafone and O2’s scheme will replace a temporary mast in a more prominent location in the green belt that has been running on diesel for some two years. It will not immediately offer 5G but could be upgraded.

EE and 3 said there were clear similarities between the two schemes and there should have been a consistent approach.

The firms said in their appeal statement: “The decision of the local authority’s planning committee was incorrect, and their overall assessment of the appeal submission was flawed.”

Councillors Guy and Warren said in a joint statement: “As councillors, we both lead and represent our communities.

“Both of us were talking as ward councillors at the 5G planning meeting in December last year, and were echoing the thoughts of many of our residents. The planning committee made its decision to turn down the application on planning grounds, including AONB proximity and overbearing height, and balanced that against the benefits claimed by the applicant.”