Bishopthorpe- 5G mast plans refused by City of York Council

City of York Council planning officers refused mobile infrastructure firm Cornerstone’s application to install the mast at the junction of Beech Avenue and Maple Avenue, in Bishopthorpe.

The company’s plans stated more 5G infrastructure was needed to meet demand and improve the quality of services, with no evidence of adverse health effects.

But 36 objections were lodged from residents claiming it would see the village unnecessarily cluttered and raised health and noise concerns.

Council planning officers stated the mast would be visually intrusive, causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

RECOMMENDED READING:

The plans would have seen a 17.5-metre monopole installed which would support six new antennas and two new 30cm dishes.

Two new equipment cabinets would also have been installed as part of the plans.

Cornerstone stated areas risked becoming digital black spots without new infrastructure which would hold back economic development, hinder local services and harm efforts to keep vulnerable people safe.

The company stated: “As 5G technology is deployed across the country more and more services will become available and our lifestyles, economy and even the way we commute will be transformed.

“Various international assessments have concluded there is no evidence of adverse health effects for wireless networks including 5G.

“Exposure to radio frequency radiation from base stations will not rise to a significant level with the introduction of the 5G network.”

The site at the junction of Maple Avenue and Beech Avenue, in Bishopthorpe, near York, proposed for the 5G mast (Image: Google Maps)

But the 36 objectors opposed to the plans, claiming the company had failed to explore mast-sharing or alternative locations.

They also claimed the mast would led to the loss of an outdoor area used by residents and it would set a precedent for more infrastructure in the future.

Bishopthorpe Parish Council, who also objected, stated there was already a mast in the area.

Council planning officers stated: “Due to its height, location, appearance, lack of screening and the very close proximity to an existing mast of the proposed development, the siting and appearance of the mast would be highly prominent and visually intrusive from public views.”