Firm wins phone mast battle at fourth attempt
Objectors fail to block move
PERSISTENCE has finally paid off for a phone company after it was given permission to site a mast in Macclesfield - at the fourth attempt.
EE is now allowed to site the 15m pole outside the Co-op, on London Road, despite encountering opposition once again, Cheshire East Council ruled.
It is the company’s fourth similar bid from the company since 2021 and the first that has been successful.
Local councillors Brian Puddicombe and Fiona Wilson - as well as four residents - objected to the mast, which is largely to provide signal for train passengers..
Coun Wilson said: “This is the fourth time that EE have applied for permission to site a mast in a residential area on the basis that it is to improve mobile phone reception on the West Coast mainline.
“The proposed mast will tower over the properties and will never be camouflaged by tree growth or vegetation.
“It will be an eyesore in the environment and visible by residents from a wide area around.”
Objectors also said the mast - with three antenna, two dishes and three ground cabinets - would add to street furniture in an already cluttered and busy area.
EE says that ‘the commercial nature of the immediate area’ means the mast would not look out of place and 15m is the minimum height required for it to work.
It also detailed 13 other alternative sites looked at, saying they were discounted for reasons including covenants restricting development, tall vegetation and being too far away from the necessary area.
A report submitted with the application says: “Network coverage on railway lines is particularly poor, this will be recognised by anyone, on any network, who has tried to sustain a phone call on a train for any period of time.
“The proposed column would provide enhanced coverage and capacity in the network for both train passengers and indeed the surrounding area, many of whom currently experience poor indoor coverage.”
In granting permission, council officer Faye Plant said: “The siting, height and appearance of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable.”