ANGER AT TELECOM FIRM’S BID TO ERECT ’50-FOOT HIGH METAL OBSCENITY’ NEAR PRIMARY SCHOOL

Councillors have angrily turned down a telecom firm’s bid to put a 50-foot ‘metal obscenity’ of a mast on a parcel of land near a primary school in the Boothstown area of Salford.

Three UK Ltd’s application also included a wrapround cabinet at the base of the 5G mast, three antennas, and three equipment cabinets and other ‘ancillary equipment’ on the land at Leigh Road, close to its junction with Boothshall Way and a stone’s throw from St Andrew’s CE Primary School.

Members of the city’s planning and transportation regulatory panel have previously voiced their frustration and fury at being unable to prevent telecoms masts being erected in random locations outside homes across the city because of Government legislation.

But having being asked for their consent on this occasion they turned the application down, regardless of officers’ recommendations to approve it.

At a meeting of the panel, Councillor Bob Clarke described the prospect of the mast a ‘50-foot metal obscenity’:

Quote

“It’s next to someone’s house and all the houses around can see it. It’s an obscenity.”

He said he could ‘see no reason’ why the telecoms firm couldn’t extend an alternative mobile mast that is already by the nearby Bridgewater Canal. 

Quote

“I’ve got so many issues with 5G. Every time I go past one of these masts I feel sick. There is nothing that high [50-feet] anywhere else in Boothstown.”

His views were echoed by Councillor John Warmisham, who said:

Quote

 

“These towers are an absolutel blight on an area and they are ruining the street scenes, not just in Salford, but across the whole country. This is scandalous and its being done for financial reasons.

“We are being rushed and ridden over and yet we are here as elected representatives. These poles are an eyesore and the Government needs to look at alternatives.”

 

Councillor Phil Cusack also weighed in saying:

Quote

 

“There is an existing mast not far away [from the application site] that’s not fully covered in antennas. 

“The proliferation of masts from a whole series of providers amounts to nothing other than a national scandal. There needs to be more planning control to prevent these masts being put up willy nilly all over the place.”

 

The panel unanimously turned down the application on the grounds that would negatively impact the amenity of nearby residents.