A telecoms company has appealed to the Scottish Government to overturn a council decision to deny it consent to put up a 20 metre high 5G mast in Perth.
CK Hutchison Networks (UK) sought approval from Perth and Kinross Council to position the mast on a path next to Dunkeld Road in September last year saying the site had been chosen as it was “the only viable solution that minimises amenity issues”.
However the local authority’s development management team withheld consent for the installation near the city’s ‘Motor Mile’ arguing the mast “would tower above all surrounding features” and form “a dominant element in the attractive street scene”.
Their report of handling said: “Its presence in this location would draw the eye, detracting from the pleasant character of the area and the established sense of place.”
The case officer who wrote the report also argued the proposed installation would lead to “an unacceptable restriction to the free-flowing movement of pedestrians, pushchairs and wheelchairs” along the path “presenting an unacceptable risk to safety”.
Their report added the site was located on land “subject to a strategic council scheme for a green travel corridor” and it was therefore “unlikely” a land acquisition agreement would be reached for the proposal.
However CK Hutchison has now asked the government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) to consider overruling the council arguing the case officer who withheld consent for the mast failed to fully appreciate the public benefit of the proposal.
Telecoms service provider WHP Telecoms has said in an appeal statement on CK Hutchison’s behalf: “The proposal has been designed to remain as discreet as physically possible yet still facilitate multiple ‘sharers’.
“The installation must be high enough to ensure suitable coverage within the cell and provide connection between these cells.
“In this instance the height is required to clear surrounding clutter. If the pole were to be lower than that proposed, there would be significantly limited coverage as the cell could not effectively communicate with other cells and the wider network, meaning the level of service expected would be compromised.
“To clarify, the local planning authority is required to undertake a balancing exercise. The balance is the visual impact/impact to pedestrian flow and safety with the equipment in situ, weighed against the need and technical requirements of the installation and availability of a suitable and available site. This balance is a well-known and most important matter for the determination of telecommunications applications and appeals.
“Had the case officer weighed perceived levels of harm to amenity against public benefit ... they would ordinarily have concluded the balance was overwhelmingly in favour of support for such development.”
The DPEA has requested a response to CK Hutchison’s appeal statement and is aiming to make a decision on the dispute by April 12.
