A bid to install a 5G mast outside a tennis club has been rejected after 66 objections.
The mast, proposed by Three's parent company CK Hutchinson’s Network, would have stood 20 metres high outside Cassiobury Park Tennis Club in The Gardens.
Between November 17 and December 7, 66 objections from members of the public came in with some describing the mast as a “tragic eyesore”, a “monstrosity”, and “totally out of keeping with the character of the area”.
Read more:
- Plans put forward for 20-metre 5G pole in Watford
- 5G phone mast given green light at second attempt
- Planning app hints at former John Lewis unit's future
Neighbours claimed the spaciousness of the tennis courts would be impacted by the pole and associated equipment cabinets.
Objections also mentioned that it would block part of the pavement, but Watford Borough Council found the remaining 1.9-metre width of pavement acceptable.
The council decision, published yesterday (December 22), said: “The proposed siting of the mast adjacent to the open tennis courts and within a spacious domestic scale residential road, together with the scale and appearance of the mast and associated cabinets, is considered to cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the locality.
“It is not considered that alternative sites have been fully explored or that the harm caused would outweigh the benefits of providing 5G coverage to the surrounding area.”
According to the officer report, only four alternative sites had been explored as options, which was not considered to be exhaustive.
CK Hutchinson had described the height of the mast as the minimum required to bring the benefits of 5G to the area, adding that “existing mast sites are not capable of supporting additional equipment”.
Commenting on the refusal, a Three UK spokesperson said: “5G rollout is vital for residents and businesses of Watford. We want to offer the community a reliable network experience and our planners determined that this site was required to deliver it.
"While we try to keep mast sites as unobtrusive as possible, they do need to be situated near to where people will be using the service and, in many cases, in precise locations to ensure the widest breadth of coverage.
"We will consider the reasons for refusal carefully and consider our options.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel