5G masts on corner of Blythe Vale & Perry Hill

[ForestHull]

@blushingsnail

“Will the structure be within 3km of an aerodrome or airfield”. Does anyone know the reasons for asking those questions? Airfield might be to do with interference of transmissions

I think it is more likely because a structure almost 18m tall may need special consideration if aircraft are taking off or landing nearby.

[JRW]

I’m happy to share the objection I put in against a particularly bad case, at the junction of Sydenham Road and Porthcawe Road, Bell Green. As you can see, I’m not interested in the height, but the shoddy, ugly and bulky cluster of 6 or so cabinets that are littered around each monopole. These are both ugly and obstruct pedestrian flow; the companies involved would find it easier to get permission if they invested in a quality upgrade of these elements.

I understand that people have health concerns, but I don’t. Do be aware that such comments are classed as not material objections, so your objections would be ignored. Stick to the bulk and visual impact of the cabinets and base, and pedestrian flow.

My comment

"I object to this application for the following reasons:

1. The height of the monopole, and its associated unsightly, poorly designed cabinets would be visually dominating, detracting and from the streetscape.

2. The site of the installation is unacceptable, in further restricting pedestrian space in a cramped stretch of pavement. Currently, it is hard to negotiate walking past the crowded bus stop, and social distancing is absolutely impossible. The proposed site currently acts as a passing place, allowing pedestrians to make way for people with prams or mobility scooters coming from the Bell Green end of the pavement. Reducing pavement width, at a time of social distancing, would be damaging to the health of the local community.

3. The site of this installation would also make it an eyesore; it is not placed next to the boundary wall of the current property, but much further out into the pavement, making it visually prominant, and attract more attention.

4. The ‘island’ site, marooned in the middle of the pavement, would also be a hazard to the visually impaired.

For each of these reasons, I hope that Lewisham Council will reject the current application.

[ForestHull]

While these may be valid objections for the Bell Green site, in this case the cabinets are planned for the end of Blythe Vale where the pavement is wider and the road is a dead-end. Therefore I think objections based on pedestrian flow maybe easily dismissed.

[ForestHull]

For anyone interested, I found some pictures of what these things look like else where:

Source: https://pedroc.co.uk/content/ee-three-monopoles

[clausy]

Surely they could make them less ugly. There’s one down by Dulwich Park on the South Circular like that too. On the one hand who doesn’t want 5G but let’s make some effort… this is one I spotted in Qatar a couple of years ago.

[Londondrz]

South Africa has Monkey Puzzle tree masts. Whilst not entirely real looking they help.

As an aside, we have a massive telecoms tower near Horniman Primary and two huge ones in Crystal Palace, these 5G ones don’t really compare.

[Rosered]

I’m really confused actually. The planning mentioned Blythe Vale, Perry Vale/Rise and Bell Green. But the maps only show the plans for Blythe Vale. Where are the other two sites? Am I missing something?

[blushingsnail]

I didn’t see anything about Perry Vale or Bell Green either. Perhaps they are going to be future plans…

Interesting to look at other “Telecoms Prior Approval” applications on Lewisham’s website.

One for a monopole on Kirkdale was refused:

DC/20/117829

“… a 20 metre high monopole supporting 6 x antennas; and 1 x 600mm dish; together with the installation of 12 equipment cabinets [my emphasis] and ancillary development at BP Service Station, 277 Kirkdale, SE26.”

Refused because:
“The siting, appearance and excessive height of the proposed monopole would result in an overly bulky, dominant and highly visible addition and the proposed cabinets and
palisade fencing would result in a visually cluttered streetscene, giving rise to
unacceptable impact on the local character of the townscape and visual amenity when
viewed from Kirkdale and Peak Hill Avenue, as well as wider views into and out of the
Cobbs Corner Conservation Area, contrary to Policies CS15 High quality design for
Lewisham, and CS16 Conservation Areas and the Historic Environment of the Core
Strategy (2011), Policies 30 Urban design and local character, 35 Public Realm, 36
New development, changes of use and alterations affecting designated heritage
assets and their setting, and 39 Domestic satellite dishes and telecommunications
equipment & Radio and telecommunications masts and infrastructure of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).”

It would be useful to look at Policy 39 of the Development Management Local Plan (2014).

[blushingsnail]

This was also refused:

DC/20/117993

“… installation of a 20m monopole, 6 no. antenna apertures, 2 no.
dishes, 4 equipment cabinets on the corner of Sydenham Road and
Porthcawe Road, Lower Sydenham SE26.”

because

“The siting of the proposed telecommunications equipment would result in the narrowing of the footway which would restrict the flow of pedestrian traffic, and would have a detrimental impact on pedestrian safety, contrary to Core Strategy Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (2011), and DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character, 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).”

[blushingsnail]

This one is worth looking at. Prior approval was deemed ‘Not Required’. Southend Lane, monopole and cabinets on a grass verge (therefore not hindering pedestrian flow).

DC/20/117342

Do links work? https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_105261

[ForestHull]

@blushingsnail

Prior approval was deemed ‘Not Required’

I think this may be due to changes in applicability of planning rules around telecoms masts. I’ve not been able to find if there was a definitive change (though didn’t try hard searching), but this article from industry renowned rag ‘The Register’ gives an idea of planned changes a year or so ago:

UK.gov: Huge mobile masts coming to a grassy hill near you soon

In the snappily titled “Proposed reforms to permitted development rights to support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage” joint document (PDF), the department for Digital Culture Media and Sport and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have not specified a new height for towers.

An amendment to planning regulations in 2016 in England allowed operators to extend existing allowed development rights to green light ground and building-based mobile telco masts to be erected without applying for full planning permission.

“We are now considering further reforms to the planning system in England in order to support the network upgrades that will be required to deploy 5G and to extend network coverage, particularly in rural areas,” the joint document states,

[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!