5G masts on corner of Blythe Vale & Perry Hill

[Rosered]

I see The Register went for a nice neutral headline there

[ForestHull]

Yep - typical style for The Register which is a bit tongue in cheek about most things.

[clausy]

I honestly haven’t read El Reg for at least 15 years - it used to be daily reading. I even found out the other day my slashdot login still works Digg I have no idea. Reddit kind of took over and is still going strong.

[Michael]

This mast has been refused:

[ForestHull]

The decision notice gives just one reason for refusal, though it covers some ground:

R E A S O N (S) F O R R E F U S A L

1. The siting and appearance of the monopole would give rise to an overly dominant and highly visible development and the proposed cabinets would result in a visually cluttered streetscene out of keeping with local character of the area when viewed from Perry Hill, Catford Road, and Bylthe Vale. The siting of the development would narrow the footway with the potential to impact pedestrian safety. The development is contrary to Paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy T6.1 of the Intend to Publish Draft London Plan (2020), Policy 14 ‘Sustainable movement and transport of the Core Strategy’ (June 2011), Policy 15 ‘High quality design for Lewisham’ of the Core Strategy (2014), Policies 30 Urban design and local character, 35 Public Realm, and 39 Domestic satellite dishes and telecommunications equipment & Radio and telecommunications masts and infrastructure of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).

[Sherwood]

There are a lot of sports grounds and open spaces just south of this area. Surely, there would be room for a mast in a corner of a sports ground. But, of course, they would have to pay to site the mast there!

[ForestHull]

Ease of access to private land maybe another consideration, but given the huge cost of these things I suspect they want to cover as many houses as possible, not open spaces.

[ForestHull]

The planning for a 20m mast by the corner in front of Esso / Tesco Express, London Road was also turned down last week.

R E A S O N (S) F O R R E F U S A L

1. The siting and appearance of the monopole would give rise to an overly dominant and
   highly visible development and would result in a visually cluttered streetscene, detracting from the character and appearance of, and views into and out of the Forest Hill Conservation Area, as well as harming the setting of the Grade II Listed Horniman
   Museum, contrary to Paragraphs 189 and 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham, and Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment of the Core Strategy
   (2011), DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character, DM Policy 35 Public Realm, DM Policy 36 New development affecting designated heritage assets and their setting and DM Policy 39 Domestic satellite dishes and telecommunications equipment & Radio and telecommunications masts and infrastructure of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).

2. The siting and appearance of the proposed monopole and cabinets would have the potential to cause distraction to, and block sight lines, of drivers close to a signalised junction, whilst also narrowing the footway with the potential to impact pedestrian safety, contrary to Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy T2 Healthy Streets and D8 Public Realm of the London Plan (2020) and Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the Lewisham Core Strategy (2011), DM Policy 35 Public Realm, and DM Policy 39 Domestic satellite dishes and telecommunications equipment & Radio and telecommunications masts and infrastructure of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).

Meanwhile Ofcom just raised £1.356bn for HM Treasury by actioning off operator licences for 700MHz and 3.8GHz bands. New base stations are going to be needed at some point.

[Sherwood]

They could disguise one as a totem pole!