Council rejects 25-metre telecoms mast in Great Harwood

Cornerstone Telecommunications had sought prior approval to install the lattice tower at Albert Works in Barons Way, Oakenshaw, to replace ageing communications equipment on the roof of Vulcan Works in Clayton Street.

The proposed structure would have supported six radio antennas, a transmission dish, two ground-level equipment cabinets and a three-metre-high fenced compound.

Planning officers accepted the principle of the development and recognised the benefits of maintaining mobile phone coverage in the area.

However, they concluded the mast's siting and appearance were unacceptable.

The applicant argued the mast would be partially shielded from view by a line of trees (Image: Hyndburn Borough Council)

A delegated report states the 25-metre structure would be taller than surrounding trees and would remain clearly visible against the skyline.

The report said: "The proposal would be a highly discordant and prominent feature that would harm the character and appearance of the area."

Officers also raised concerns about the effect on nearby residents living approximately 45 metres from the site.

The report added: "It would be a dominant feature from some properties on Hameldon View, particularly from numbers 20, 22 and 24. It would be harmful to outlook and harm the living conditions of nearby occupants."

Cornerstone Telecommunications wanted to build the large mast on the edge of an industrial estate (Image: Hyndburn Borough Council)

The application was submitted under telecommunications permitted development legislation, meaning the council could only consider the mast's siting and appearance rather than the wider principle of the development.

Cornerstone argued the new installation was required because the existing rooftop base station at Vulcan Works is approaching the end of its operational life and is due to be decommissioned.

The company said the replacement mast would help maintain network coverage and capacity across Great Harwood and avoid significant signal loss affecting homes and businesses.

However, officers said insufficient evidence had been provided to show why the existing installation could not be repaired or replaced on the current site.

Questions were also raised about the search for alternative locations.

While the applicant considered a number of potential sites, planning officers said the assessment was neither comprehensive nor reliable.

The report notes that only one other site within the Barons Way industrial estate was assessed, despite there appearing to be other potential locations closer to the proposed mast.

Officers also highlighted that a previously approved 20-metre mast elsewhere on Barons Way had been discounted for operational reasons, but said the supporting information failed to adequately explain why the site could not be used.

The report states: "It has not been demonstrated with sufficient rigour that there are no other potential and viable alternative suitable sites available within the area."

In refusing prior approval, the council concluded that the benefits of maintaining and improving mobile coverage did not outweigh the harm caused by the mast's appearance and impact on nearby residents.