More 5G city masts refused in Hereford

Four more applications to erect tall 5G telecoms masts around Hereford have been refused, due to the “visual harm” they would cause.

The decisions mark a further setback for CK Hutchinson Networks, which runs the Three mobile phone network, and which is spearheading rollout of 5G infrastructure in the city.

Its bid for permission to erect a 17-metre tall pole, reduced from 20m, and base cabinets beside Hoarwithy Road, by the junction with Holme Lacy Road to the south of the city, is among the latest to be refused by Herefordshire Council.

Planning officer Elsie Morgan concluded that the “incongruous, industrial” pole would still be “extremely prominent” and cause “unacceptable visual harm”.

CK Hutchison also applied to put up a 20-metre mast on a verge by the junction of the A4103 Roman Road and the A4110 Canon Pyon Road.

Along with 12 objections from individuals, Hereford City Council said the mast would be too close to residential housing, and would be “a visual detriment to the neighbourhood”.

Planning officer Gemma Webster said that with the mast introducing “an industrial element” to the area, she was “not persuaded that sufficient clarity has been provided as to the potential for a less intrusive site, or for a mast of reduced height”.

Of a plan by CK Hutchison for a 15-metre by the A49 Newtown Road in the city, between Widemarsh Common and Mortimer Road, officer Simon Rowles said this would intrude on the “strong bucolic character” of the “conservation area streetscape”, and felt safety concerns about its siting immediately by a national highway had been inadequately addressed.

A similar fate has also befallen the company’s plan for a 20m mast on the pavement of the residential Blackmarston Road to the southwest of the city.

This would not only “dominate its built surroundings”, but would be beside a busy road and roundabout, Mr Rowles said,

However permission has been given for a 5G pole on the Roman Road near the Starting Gate roundabout with the A49, where an earlier plan for a 20-metre pole was refused last December.

This time, Mr Rowles concluded that, “based on the reduction in height [to 15m] secured, the adverse effect on visual amenity has been satisfactorily minimised”.

He and fellow officers said they were satisfied the poles would not harm public health.