Telecoms company win mast appeal

Mobile telecom companies EE and Hutchinson have won an appeal after East Herts District Council refused planning permission for a 20m mast on the corner of Mimram Road and Hertingfordbury Road.

East Herts Council refused planning permission in February 2022, saying: "The proposed mast, by reason of its inappropriate height and siting would be at odds with the built form in this setting. The high visibility of the mast in the public realm means that it would appear unduly dominant and overly prominent in the surrounding area. There would be an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the site, the surrounding area and the approach to the town".

There were 37 written objections from members of the public. Hertford Town Council also objected to the proposal.

However, Mobile Broadband Network Limited, owned by EE and Hutchinson, lodged an appeal with the government's Planning Inspectorate in May 2022.

In a decision published on 24th March, planning inspector E Dade allowed the appeal on multiple grounds, including:

• The presence of nearby buildings and mature trees adjacent to the bridge would provide an element of screening and enclosure of the proposed installation at street level.
• The mast would be viewed against a backdrop of a brick rail bridge and earth embankments, along with mature trees, lighting columns and overhead lines atop metal poles, thereby reducing the visual impacts of the height of proposed monopole.
• Nearby dwellings and gardens are elevated significantly above the ground level of the proposed mast site and would generally obscure views of the installation from the north.
• The mast would not appear unduly dominant or overly prominent in the surrounding area, would not harm the visual qualities of the approach to the town, and would not adversely impact on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

The inspector also acknowledged concerns about the health risks of 5G communications but said that this was not a matter to be questioned as part of the appeal because public exposure to  non-ionizing radiations is within guidelines.