Birmingham City Council has rejected plans to situate a 20 metre high mobile phone mast in a Northfield public park.

Applicants said that the site in Hill Top park – a council owned public park which lies between Bristol Road South and Frankley Beeches Road – was the only feasible location for a single mast to replace a temporary mast currently on the former North Worcestershire Golf Club site in Hanging Lane.

Antennae were previously placed on the North Worcestershire Golf Club house. A temporary 20 metre mast was placed on the site after the club house was destroyed by fire and subsequently demolished.

After years of speculation, rumours, consultations, withdrawn proposals and petitions, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government gave developers Bloor Homes the go ahead to build up to 800 homes on the site last year – after proposals were previously rejected by City Council planners.

Now Bloor Homes are asking mast owners MBNL to remove the temporary mast on the former golf club site.

The proposed 20 metre monopole and antennae would sit within the park – popular with locals for walks and leisure activities – close the rear of gardens edging the park.

Today, the council refused the application, deeming it have an adverse visual impact on the space, would be detrimental to the outlook from neighbouring homes and would restrict the use of the park. The refusal document also stated that it was not felt alternative sites had been sought.

Reasons given in full:

  1. The proposed telecommunications equipment would, by virtue of its size, siting and appearance, have an adverse impact on this area of public open space, to the detriment of its visual quality and useability and be exposed and prominent in the locality to the detriment of visual amenity. As such the proposal would be contrary to saved paragraphs 8.55 and 8.55 A-C of the Birmingham UDP 2005 and Telecommunications Development : Mobile Phones Infrastructure adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.
  2. The proposed telecommunications equipment would, by virtue of its size, siting and appearance, be detrimental to the outlook from the residential properties located in close proximity to the site. As such the proposal would be contrary to saved paragraphs 8.55 and 8.55 A-C of the Birmingham UDP 2005 and Telecommunications Development : Mobile Phones Infrastructure adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.
  3. Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that alternative suitable sites have been sought for the proposed location of the new telecommunications equipment. As such the proposal would be contrary to saved paragraphs 8.55 and 8.55 A-C of the Birmingham UDP 2005 and Telecommunications Development : Mobile Phones Infrastructure adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.
  4. The proposed telecommunications equipment and associated trackway would restrict the usability of the public open space and would be detrimental to the enjoyment of those using the public open space. As such the proposal would be contrary to saved paragraphs 8.55 and 8.55 A-C of the Birmingham UDP 2005 and Telecommunications Development : Mobile Phones Infrastructure adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework. 5 Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the proposal would not detrimentally impact upon trees/ecology in the locality. As such the proposal would be contrary to saved paragraphs 8.55 and 8.55 A-C of the Birmingham UDP 2005, Policies PG3 and TP7 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, Telecommunications Development : Mobile Phones Infrastructure adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

To view the plans and decision document, visit the Birmingham City Council planning website and search for Application Number 2020/09675/PA before 7th January 2021

1 COMMENT

  1. Thanks for this. One correction: I wrote to Bloor about this and they said that they had not served a notice to quit on EE (the applicants), which EE’s agents had wrongly said in the application had been done. Bloor even said that they would let me know when they were planning to serve the notice. I have the correspondence if anyone is interested. Michael Chambers

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here