West Berkshire Makes it Harder to Rollout 5G Mobile Networks

The UK Government’s recent changes to Permitted Development (PD) rights for mobile infrastructure (here), which aimed to help extend 5G and 4G (mobile broadband) coverage in rural areas of England (e.g. allowing taller masts of up to 30 metres), appear to have been rejected in West Berkshire where the council has added new obstacles.

The primary Mobile Network Operators (MNO) – Three UK, Vodafone, O2 (VMO2) and EE (BT) – are all currently in the process of building ultrafast 5G networks across the UK. In addition, the £1bn industry led Shared Rural Network project (inc. £500m of public investment) is also working to extend geographic 4G coverage to 95% of the UK by the end of 2025, which may aid future 5G coverage.

In order to help encourage that, the Government recently introduced various changes to make it easier, quicker and cheaper for operators to build taller masts and upgrade existing sites – often without needing full approval from a local authority. But the West Berkshire Council (WBC) has decided to go in the opposite direction by forcing mobile operators to go through a tougher planning process.

According to the BBC, the WBC has had a lot of complaints about new mast sites from local residents (this is not an uncommon issue) and have recently refused some applications in order to “avoid the full planning process“. The council said the proposed masts would have a negative impact on the surrounding area, were the wrong colour and were a danger to road safety.

The recent changes will, among other things, allow for taller masts (up to 30 metres), make it easier to install new masts, improve mobile coverage near roads, make it easier for operators to share infrastructure and to upgrade existing sites with newer mobile technologies (without prior approval being required). But new cabinets over 2.5 cubic metres and some mast height increases (up to 30 metres) are still subject to prior approval by a local authority.

In short, most new masts can be granted planning permission without the need to submit a planning application (i.e. PD rights), although mobile operators sometimes do still need to submit an application to the local planning authority for “prior approval“. The latter is what WBC has been rejecting.

In fairness, councillors often come under a lot of pressure from their constituents to take action against such developments and, at the same time, mobile operators don’t always put as much effort as they perhaps claim into finding a more acceptable location (though they naturally always say they do). But there is a reality that if you want better mobile coverage and network performance, then a sacrifice does have to be made somewhere.

Otherwise, it’s difficult to see how the goals of improved 4G coverage via the SRN and future 5G performance can ever be met.