Scarborough Council rejects two applications to install 5G internet poles due to ‘adverse impact’ on landscape

Two applications that proposed the installation of 5G masts and related equipment at different sites in the borough have been rejected by the local planning authority.

The first application, which was rejected at a meeting in September, sought to install an 18-metre street pole, “complete with wrap-around cabinet and three further additional equipment cabinets for 5G” on North Street, in Scarborough.

The second application, which was rejected in November, proposed the installation of a 20-metre 5G telecoms street pole alongside additional equipment cabinets, which would have been located on Mill Lane, in Cayton.

In both cases, Scarborough Council rejected the applications primarily on the basis of “visually intrusive features” and also over concerns that they would have a “serious adverse impact” on the public’s enjoyment of the wider landscape.

The applicant, London-based CK Hutchison UK, is a subsidiary of a Hong Kong-based and Cayman Islands-registered multinational conglomerate corporation that operates the internet provider Three.

According to documents filed on Companies House, in 2020 the UK-based company registered a profit of more than £8m.

In rejecting the North Street application, the planning authority said: “The siting and appearance of the proposed development conflicts with the design and built heritage policies mentioned above and the proposal is, therefore, unacceptable.”

It added: “It is not evident that the possibility of erecting the proposed apparatus on existing buildings, masts or other structures has been adequately explored… As well as being unsympathetically designed.”

With regard to the latter application on Mill Lane, the head of the planning service, Mr Walker, stated: “The proposed 20-metre high mast would be a highly visibly intrusive feature, therefore it would be incongruously distinct from the existing street furniture near the application site.”

He added: “It would be at odds with the character of the architecture in the locality and, by reason of its height, would puncture the skyline and become the dominant visual feature in important views and vistas from all directions of the site.”