Residents rally to raise objection to phone mast
RESIDENTS have mobilised to voice overwhelming objections to a 17.5m phone mast that at first appeared to have majority support.
As reported in last week’s Macclesfield Express EE wants to site the pole on Dorchester Way, Tytherington, an area known for its bad mobile and internet connectivity.
As a result initial responses brought eight residents in support and just six against - a highly unusual reaction to a phone mast application.
But now an action group against the application has formed and is in the process of leafleting 500 homes, saying few residents were previously aware of the plans.
And a week after this began there are now 70 objections against the mast. They say it is not suitable so close to homes, would spoil the area’s amenity and is obtrusive.
One issue raised is that the mast is said to be primarily to improve signal for train passengers but the railway line is more than 300m away.
Opponents claim this means it will not be particularly effective for trains and dispute the idea its visual impact can be minimised ‘by a backdrop of railway infrastructure’.
Richard and Jessica Gardner, who live on Weybridge Drive near the site, are part of the action group.
They said: “Very few people knew about the mast or the implications of it until we pointed it out. Everyone acknowledges the need for improved connectivity, however there are more ideal locations. Everyone we have spoken to strongly agrees.
“We are lucky to have an area of verges and that is tree-lined; this mast will spoil the aesthetics of the area.”
It is also said the mast is too close to homes and a children’s play area.
If given the go ahead it would be for 4G and, in time, 5G communications.
There remain eight letters of support sent to Cheshire East Council.
One says: “We desperately need better phone signal in Tytherington.
“None of the networks have good coverage.”
Harlequin is the agent operating on behalf of EE and says other sites at Tytherington Golf Course and Riverside Park were considered but rejected due to ‘technical and operation requirements’.
And the mast would benefit residents and businesses in addition to train passengers, as well as complying with all relevant policies.
A report submitted with the application said: “The proposed location has been chosen as it is ideally situated to provide adequate coverage whilst minimising any perceived negative visual impact with a natural backdrop of the
The council aims to rule on the application by mid September. railway infrastructure.”