I am glad that the 5G mast proposed for Harlech Close, Swindon (S/TC/22/1060) has been refused.
I recently submitted a planning objection on behalf of the many local residents who contacted me with concerns about this application on the following grounds:
The proposed location was unnecessarily close to one property in particular in Harlech Close.
The proposed footpath would have caused access issues for local residents, particularly those with mobility issues who need to use a wheelchair or mobility scooter, as well as residents with young children and pushchairs.
The area is densely populated, with a high percentage of bungalows. Therefore, many elderly and more vulnerable residents live in the surrounding area, making the proposed unsuitable footpath even more unsafe and concerning.
There was concern amongst local residents regarding visibility for road users, due to the tower and ancillary boxes located at the junction causing an obstruction. I was informed that no assessment had been made regarding this potential issue, and Highways require technical approval, which had not been completed by the proposer.
Government guidelines state that wherever possible, providers should upgrade existing locations before creating new ones. In the document titled ‘5g Briefing Note,’ there was no clear explanation as to why a new location had been sought, with the provider issuing just a single line in their supplementary information supporting document stating that ‘existing sites are not capable of supporting additional equipment. Therefore, there was insufficient information available as part of the proposal to support this statement by the proposer.
There was also concern amongst local residents that the proposer had not considered all other options available.
Furthermore, local residents raised concerns about overshadowing and loss of privacy during maintenance.
In summary, I objected to this proposal in support of local residents on grounds of:
The proposed footpath was unsuitable for the high percentage of elderly residents in the area, particularly those using mobility scooters and wheelchairs, and those with poor sight.
The proposed footpath also being unsuitable for residents with young children who require pushchairs.
A highways assessment was not completed regarding potential visibility issues at the nearby junction.
The proposer failed to provide sufficient evidence about why it was not possible to upgrade an existing location.
The concerns of residents regarding overshadowing and loss of privacy during maintenance.
