Councillors have rejected proposals to put a 50ft tall 5G telecoms mast between a home and shop on a busy street in Armadale.
Local councillor Stuart Borrowman told the Development Management Committee the three storey tall mast: "should not be plonked in front of somebody’s house.”
READ MORE: West Lothian villagers face delay for vote on controversial car park
The committee heard that CK Hutchison Networks UK didn’t need planning permission to install the mast and associated cabinets because mast installation has been permitted development since the early 1990s.
The plan was revised, shortening the height of the mast from 52ft and moving it away from the driveway of the house closer to the shop - a disused hairdressers.
A report to the committee said that the mast was compliant with government regulations on radio frequency public exposure guidelines. The mast and cabinets could also be easily accommodated on the wide pavement.
However objections from the neighbours were supported by Councillor Borrowman.
Jim McCulloch told the committee that South Street provided access to local schools and churches and was busy with pedestrians .
He suggested that the mast would be visually intrusive to his property and would affect the potential sale of his home. “Every time we look out of our front window or drive into our driveway we are going to see this mast,” Mr McCulloch told the committee.
He questioned why the mast needed to be on the street at all. He said: “The mast will have a significant visual impact and appear incongruent to the surrounding area.
“We believe that there are much more suitable places in Armadale for the mast e.g the area around the old Arnold Clark showroom, behind the Co-op and the football ground, around the Asda store or the new Arnold Clark showroom, near the train station and also the new footpath from Armadale to Whitburn, around the dog track to name a few.”
Councillor Borrowman asked planning officers: “Did the planning department have discussion about alternative locations?”.
Planning officer Wendy McCorriston said there had been no discussion of other sites. The applicants had suggested the location after a narrow site search was made. This site had been chosen because it was believed to provide optimum 5G coverage. She reminded the committee that the mast is permitted development.
Councillor Pauline Clark suggested the decisions could be delayed. “Would they be able to consider other sites?” she asked.
Mrs McCorriston replied: “The legislation is permitted development. If we do not grant prior approval within 56 days, that is if we don’t determine the application within another three weeks the applicants can build the mast where they want, unless the council specifically refuses prior approval. I would recommend you make a decision in the application today.”
Councillor George Paul raised the question of radiation concerns which objectors had voiced. Mrs McCorriston pointed out that the Scottish Government required telecoms forms to provide safety certificates, and this had been done. This was not something that any planning authority could take into account.
Councillor Borrowman said: “This is one of these cases where I thought: ‘Really?’. This is an extraordinary proposal in an extraordinary location. I was dismayed that the planning department assessed this as not having an effect on residential amenity. I really feel it has a significant effect of detrimental amenity in that part of South Street.”
He added: “I really feel it’s not an appropriate place. Mr McCulloch did us a favour by listing a number of alternatives. This is just the wrong place. It’s a necessary piece of infrastructure, but not plonked in front of somebody’s house.”
He was backed by Councillor Clark who said councillors should not be expected to support the siting of big masts in front of people’s homes.
Councillor Paul said: “It may be the right mast for its purpose but I definitely think it has been sited in the wrong place and I definitely think an alternative place should be found for it. Not in front of somebody's house.”
Chairing the committee, Councillor Charles Kennedy agreed that there would be a serious impact and loss of amenity and another alternative site should be found.
Committee backed Councillor Borrowman’s proposed refusal, and his comment: “It’s a request, and can only be a request, that the planning department opens discussions about potential sites elsewhere.”
