Local Opposition Making UK 5G Upgrades to 4G Masts Difficult

The forthcoming roll-out of new ultrafast 5G mobile networks will in some areas benefit from shorter masts being upgraded to taller ones in order to fit the new infrastructure and improve coverage. But as one example in Manchester shows, such developments have a tendency to attract complaints.

At present not a week seems to go by without one group or another complaining about poor mobile network coverage, although admittedly this is usually focused more upon wide open rural areas than urban ones. Nevertheless even urban developments are likely to face challenges when it comes to the tedious process of seeking planning permission for significant upgrades.

In this case Mobile Broadband Network Limited (MBNL), which oversees the network joint venture between mobile operators EE (BT) and Three UK, recently put in an application for the replacement of 17.5m high steel mast on Withington Road in Manchester with a new 25m tall one (planning application). The new mast would also add new 5G infrastructure at the top.

The mast itself is positioned in an urban area, surrounded by a second hand car sales lot, the odd warehouse and various retail shops on the opposite side of the road. Suffice to say that adding a bit of extra height isn’t likely to make too much of a visual difference to the local area, which is already fairly mixed in appearance.

Unfortunately local a newspaper report suggests (here) that the application is likely to face a fair bit of local opposition. Residents in the area are understood to be preparing a formal objection to the mast, which they say will highlight gripes about its height, scale and even some seemingly unfounded paranoia about public health issues (wireless radiation). Such complaints are by no means uncommon but they create delays and added costs.

The 25 metre height is currently the legal limit in England (it’s even lower in some parts of the UK, such as Wales), but outside of urban areas mobile operators would also like to build even taller masts because this is one way to significantly boost coverage, while keeping costs down. Around the EU a lot of countries have a 50m limit and 25m also seems increasingly redundant in the era of towering wind turbines.

One other often overlooked irony of all this is that by building taller masts operators may reduce any perceived health concerns by moving the key mobile antenna equipment higher and thus further away from homes directly below. In any case the only people who tend to face any real health risks are the engineers that have to climb such masts, albeit more due to the threat of a fall, cuts or electrocution.

In fairness there are some locations, both urban and rural alike, where such masts would cause a significant detriment to the local appearance and so it’s important not to become too flexible with permissions. Nevertheless this doesn’t seem to be one of those cases and operators could equally argue that it is both more visually attractive and cheaper to deploy a single big mast than to have lots of smaller ones dotted all over the place.

We should add that not all 5G upgrades will require taller masts or make any visual difference, although in order to get the most out of 5G it will become necessary to build a much denser network across urban areas. Put another way, you’re likely to see many more mobile sites in cities than before and this in turn may well attract more complaints.

In this case the city authority appears to be supportive of the work, although we’ve seen similar plans in other areas being rejected and that raises an age old dilemma. On the one hand we have various politicians, Ofcom and people calling for a significant improvement in mobile coverage. On the other hand when operators try to do something that would help, such as building a taller mast, then they often face opposition.

This creates a difficult problem for mobile operators to solve without Government help. Last year’s Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review (FTIR) made a number of proposals to support mobile coverage (e.g. reviewing the recently revised electronic communications code, changing planning regulations and opening Government infrastructure up for use by operators etc.). Finding a balance is never easy.