‘Dominant’ 5G phone mast plan axed after neighbour complaints

Nicholas Thomas, local democracy reporter

A “dominant” 5G mobile phone mast cannot be installed in a residential street, partly because it would be an “incongruous addition to the area”.

Newport council planners have refused permission for applicant WHP Telecoms to set up a 20-metre mast on land opposite homes in St Julian’s Road, opposite the junction with Norfolk Road.

It was claimed the mast would bring “faster, more responsive and more reliable connections than ever before” to the area, where there were “very little in the way of” alternative sites.

The plans drew an angry response from some neighbouring residents, however, who claimed the mast would be an “eyesore”.

Some 18 residents made their thoughts known about the planned mobile phone mast.

‘Visual intrusion’

Their objections included health, noise and property value concerns, as well as the location of the “highly prominent” mast in a green space potentially being a “visual intrusion”.

Ward councillors Deb Davies and Matthew Pimm also raised concerns about the mast proposal.

Cllr Davies said “a number of residents” had contacted her, focusing on the “negative impact on the open space” and an “inadequate” consultation which only included immediate neighbours of the site.

“The general feeling is that as the mast will dominate a larger geographical area than the immediate site, consultation should have been wider than this,” she added.

Cllr Davies also said the mast would be taller than nearby trees and could “dominate the landscape”.

Cllr Pimm said he was opposed to the mast, which could be “too intrusive”.

The public reaction to the proposal had been “very hostile” on social media, he added.

At the time of submitting the application, the site was described as “the least intrusive location that meets the network demands in the area”.

In their conclusions, the city council’s planning officers said the mast would “appear unduly dominant and discordant”, with a “significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the site”.

They also decided the mast would have an adverse impact on the ecology and landscape of the area.

But the council planners said any residents’ concerns that a mast could devalue their properties were “not a material planning consideration”.